AuguroAuguro vs Zabbix
One monitors infrastructure. The other monitors whether your website works. People keep asking the first to do the second.
Where Zabbix is the better answer
Zabbix is free, self-hosted, and will monitor anything you can put an agent on: switches, disks, temperature sensors, a Java heap. For infrastructure it is without equal at the price.
Where it leaves you exposed
It is a system you operate rather than a service you use. Templates, items, triggers, discovery rules and a database to maintain — and an afternoon spent before the first website is checked.
GET https://yoursite.com
200 OK · 84ms
All systems operational
Nothing. The page is blank.
Side by side
| Zabbix | Auguro | |
|---|---|---|
| Monitors servers, switches, disks | Yes | No |
| Something to install and keep running | Yes | No |
| Checks a website renders | Only if you build it | Yes |
| Time to first check | An afternoon | A minute |
| Maintenance windows | Yes | Yes |
| Cost | Free, plus your time | From free |
Which should you choose
Keep Zabbix for your infrastructure. It was never designed to report that a marketing site had gone blank, and adapting it to that purpose costs more effort than the result justifies.
One monitor free, permanently. No card required, and nothing to script.