Subscribe to our Newsletter!
By subscribing to our newsletter, you agree with our privacy terms
Home > Network Monitoring > Monitoring vs. Alerting Best Practices: Which Strategy Delivers Better Results?
December 12, 2025
If you’ve ever been woken up at 3 AM by a “pointless message” about a test environment issue, you already know the problem. Monitoring and alerting aren’t the same thing, but most teams treat them like they are. The result? A sea of noisy data that drowns out critical issues while your inbox fills with notifications nobody acts on.
Here’s the reality: monitoring is about collecting data, while alerting is about taking action. Get the balance wrong, and you’ll either miss critical outages or suffer from alert fatigue so severe that your team starts ignoring everything. This comparison breaks down both strategies, shows you when to use each, and helps you build a system that actually works.
Quick verdict: You need both, but the ratio matters. Most organizations over-alert and under-monitor, creating noise instead of insight. The best approach combines comprehensive monitoring with selective, actionable alerting.
Criterion Monitoring Alerting Primary Purpose Continuous data collection and visibility Immediate notification of critical issues Scope Everything in your infrastructure Only threshold violations and anomalies Frequency Real-time, continuous observation Triggered only when conditions are met User Action Required Optional (review dashboards periodically) Immediate (investigate and resolve) Alert Fatigue Risk Low (passive observation) High (if misconfigured) Best For Trend analysis, capacity planning, troubleshooting Incident response, uptime protection, SLA compliance Resource Impact Moderate (storage, processing) Low (only when triggered) Implementation Complexity High (comprehensive coverage needed) Medium (threshold tuning required)
Monitoring is the continuous collection and visualization of metrics from your IT infrastructure. Think of it as your network’s vital signs dashboard. You’re tracking CPU usage, bandwidth consumption, latency, error rates, and hundreds of other data points across servers, applications, and network devices.
Best use cases for monitoring:
Key strengths:
The challenge with monitoring alone is that it’s passive. You can have perfect visibility into every metric, but if nobody’s watching the dashboard when a critical server hits 100% CPU, you’ll still experience downtime. That’s where alerting comes in.
Alerting is the automated notification system that tells you when something requires immediate attention. It’s the difference between knowing your server is at 90% memory usage (monitoring) and getting a text message at 2 AM because it just crossed 95% and your application is about to crash (alerting).
Best use cases for alerting:
The problem with alerting is that it’s easy to get wrong. Set thresholds too low, and you’ll drown in false positives. Set them too high, and you’ll miss critical issues until it’s too late. As one Reddit user put it: “We have alerts at 70%, then 80%, then 90% memory usage. I’m wondering if 90% would suffice.”
Comprehensive network monitoring tools should track everything that could impact performance or availability. This includes:
The goal is complete observability. You want to see the entire picture, even if you don’t act on every data point immediately.
Winner for coverage: Monitoring provides comprehensive visibility across all systems and metrics.
Alerting should be highly selective. Only create alerts for conditions that require immediate human intervention. This means:
The principle is simple: if it doesn’t require someone to wake up and fix it right now, it shouldn’t trigger an alert. Use monitoring dashboards for everything else.
Winner for coverage: Alerting focuses on what matters most, reducing noise and improving response times.
Alert fatigue happens when your team receives so many notifications that they start ignoring them all, including the critical ones. Here’s how each approach handles this challenge.
Monitoring doesn’t cause alert fatigue because it doesn’t send alerts. Instead, it provides dashboards and reports that teams review on their own schedule. You can check trends during your morning coffee, not at 3 AM.
The downside? If you’re only relying on monitoring, you might not notice critical issues until business hours, when users are already complaining.
Smart alerting systems use several techniques to prevent fatigue:
Distributed network monitoring systems like PRTG help you configure thresholds and alerts that distinguish between “worth knowing” and “needs immediate action.”
Winner for reducing fatigue: Monitoring eliminates alert fatigue entirely, but alerting wins when properly configured with intelligent thresholds and escalation.
This is where most teams get it wrong. Here’s a practical framework.
These metrics belong on dashboards where you can spot trends and plan capacity upgrades, but they don’t require immediate action.
These conditions require someone to investigate and resolve right now, before they cause business impact.
This tiered approach ensures the right people get the right information at the right time.
Winner for actionable intelligence: Alerting provides clear action triggers, while monitoring provides context for decision-making.
Modern monitoring platforms integrate with:
The integration enables automated reporting, trend visualization, and historical analysis. You can build custom dashboards for different stakeholders without overwhelming them with raw data.
Alerting systems integrate with:
The key advantage is automated response. When a specific alert fires, you can automatically run remediation scripts, create tickets, notify on-call engineers, and escalate if needed.
Winner for automation: Alerting enables automated incident response, while monitoring enables automated analysis and reporting.
Typical cost for 500 devices: $5,000-$15,000 annually for enterprise monitoring platforms.
Typical cost for 500 devices: $2,000-$8,000 annually for alerting and incident management platforms.
Winner for cost efficiency: Alerting has lower direct costs, but monitoring provides better ROI through proactive optimization.
Pros:
Cons:
Most organizations need both, but in different proportions:
For small teams (1-10 people):
For medium teams (10-50 people):
For large enterprises (50+ people):
You can’t choose between monitoring and alerting because they serve different purposes. Monitoring provides the comprehensive visibility you need to understand your infrastructure, while alerting provides the immediate notifications you need to protect uptime.
The real question isn’t “which one?” but “what’s the right balance?” Here’s the framework:
Monitor everything. Alert on what matters.
Start with comprehensive monitoring to establish baselines and understand normal behavior. Then layer on selective, actionable alerts for conditions that require immediate response. Review your alerts monthly and ruthlessly eliminate anything that doesn’t result in action.
If you’re getting more than 5 alerts per week that don’t require investigation, your thresholds are too sensitive. If you’re discovering problems through user complaints instead of alerts, your thresholds are too lenient.
The goal is simple: use monitoring to stay informed, and use alerting to stay protected. Get both right, and you’ll spend less time firefighting and more time optimizing.
Ready to implement both strategies effectively? PRTG Network Monitor combines comprehensive monitoring with intelligent alerting in a single platform, helping you find the right balance for your infrastructure.
Previous
How I Finally Understood When to Use NetFlow vs SNMP (And Stopped Wasting Time)
Next
Can't Figure Out What's Eating Your Bandwidth? Here's How to Fix It
