Skip to content
Elastic Fleet Vs BindPlane
Side-by-Side: Positives & Negatives
Here’s a comparison table, then details generated by AI chat.
Table 1
Aspect
Elastic Fleet – Positives
Elastic Fleet – Negatives
BindPlane – Positives
BindPlane – Negatives
Aspect
Elastic Fleet – Positives
Elastic Fleet – Negatives
BindPlane – Positives
BindPlane – Negatives
Management / Central Control
Strong. Fleet Server + Kibana gives full policy push, version/agent upgrades, centralized config of what to collect.
Tied to Elastic ecosystem. If you diverge (send data elsewhere, or use highly custom collectors), some policies/integrations may lose full functionality. Also, some sharp edges in offline or outage situations.
Good. Central management of OpenTelemetry collector configs; ability to manage many collectors from a console; multi-tenant / multi-destination support.
The upgrade story of the collector binary or certain components may be less tight. UI and tooling may not be as mature for large-scale edge cases.
Upgrades / Agent Lifecycle
✅ You can upgrade agent versions remotely via Fleet. Remote policy changes. Binary upgrades and rollback via Fleet.
⚠️ If using standalone agents (not Fleet-enrolled), then no remote upgrade. If agents are in containers you may need to upgrade container instead. Also, Elastic Agent uses in-memory queue for output; outages may lead to data loss. The buffering is limited.
✅ BindPlane collectors generally support version upgrades, and because it uses OTel, it follows OTel release cycles; may support modular components. Also, because it can route to multiple outputs, you can test and roll-out gradually.
⚠️ Upgrading can be more complex if there are many varied collector versions, custom plugins, or if someone modified configs locally. Also, less agent policy enforcement vs Fleet. Dependency on OTel versions and compatibility issues.
OpenTelemetry (OTel) Support
Supports OTel collector inputs / pipelines in some capacities. Elastic is increasingly using OTel under the hood. Integrations may be moving towards OTel data formats.
Some Elastic integrations / dashboards / ingest pipelines assume “native Elastic → ingest pipelines” flow; using OTel or routing through non-Elastic outputs may reduce or lose certain optimizations (dashboards, field mappings, prebuilt parsing). Also limitations in multiple outputs / branching.
✅ Very strong. OTel is core to BindPlane’s approach. Flexible, can collect logs/metrics/traces via OTel. Supports many exporters.
Sometimes you may lack the deeply-customized ingestion pipelines / built-in dashboards that Elastic offers. You may need to do more mapping / metadata enrichment yourself. Also, OTel features / stability can vary, depending on version.
Outputs / Data Destinations
Supports sending to non-Elastic outputs (e.g. Kafka) but with some trade-offs. You define output in policy. Great if Kafka is your sink. Helps keep using Fleet’s management even if not sending to ES.
But Elastic Agents currently only support one output per agent policy (i.e. no direct multiple outputs / branching) in many cases. Also, buffering is limited (memory queues). If the sink is down, events are queued in memory; risk of loss.
✅ Multi-destination output is a strong point. You can send to Kafka, Elastic, Splunk etc as needed. The flexibility is beneficial in heterogeneous environments.
If many destinations are used, there may be increased complexity; performance / resource overhead increases. Also managing export configs, ensuring each destination’s schema / billing / security etc. may require more effort.
Integrations / Prebuilt Functionality
Very rich. Elastic has many out-of-the-box integrations, ingest pipelines, dashboards, SIEM rules, security, etc. Policies + integrations are well supported.
When deviating from “standard” Elastic use (i.e. sending via Kafka or custom collector pipelines), you may lose some of the canned integrations/dashboards or need to recreate them. Also less flexibility for deeply custom parsing (branching logic) vs tools like Logstash.
Good variety. Since using OTel, you often get broad coverage of log/metric sources. Also you can often send the same data into tools already in place. For teams using multiple backends, BindPlane helps unify.
But maybe fewer “Elastic-native” dashboards or detectors. More work required to align schema, metadata, dashboards. Possibly more overhead. Also vendor neutral sometimes means features are generalized rather than optimized for one stack.
Scalability & Performance
Scales well in large environments; there are guidelines for resource usage in Kubernetes, etc. Elastic has invested in scaling fleet + metrics.
Resource overhead can be higher; elastic-agent is heavier than minimal collectors. Also, when many integration modules are enabled, CPU/memory usage increases. Buffering limitations (no disk persistent queue in agent) means sink downtime or high latency may cause problems.
Good scalability since many collectors are lightweight; can deploy only what’s needed. Can scale horizontally; multiple collectors sending to multiple destinations.
Performance depends heavily on collector version, configuration, and how many exporters / transforms / pipelines are used. Potential overhead of maintaining many pipelines. Also, debugging / diagnosing failure modes can be harder.
Reliability / Buffering / Offline Handling
Moderate. Elastic Agent uses in-memory queue; no built-in durable disk queue in many cases. If output (e.g. Kafka or Elasticsearch) is down, data may be lost, or memory may fill up.
High. Many tools (BindPlane + OTel) allow using persistent queues or external buffering (e.g. Kafka or queueing layer). Also supports retries, backoff. You can architect for more reliability across outputs.
But durability and exactly what buffering / retry guarantee you get depends on how you deploy. If using only in memory, or weak network conditions, might still lose data. Also managing those guarantees across many outputs is more work.
Security / Compliance
Tight integration with Elastic Security, endpoint protection, security alerting. Fleet supports secured communications, policies. If you're using Elastic for SIEM, you get a lot of built-in benefit.
If sending data outside Elastic (e.g. other exporters), you may lose some of the built-in protections. Also, more components (like Kafka, external collectors) mean more security surface to manage.
Good if collectors / destinations support TLS, authentication, encryption; you can configure security per exporter. Vendor-neutral tools often assume strong security configuration.
But you need to implement / maintain it. Less “turn-key” maybe than Elastic when integrated with its own stack. Also possible version / compatibility security issues with OTel modules.
Cost & Licensing
If your infrastructure is mostly Elastic and you're using paid features (security, alerting, long-term storage, etc.), costs can add up; licensing for large data volume / retention matters. Also more resource usage.
The lock-in risk – if you go Elastic-only, you are tied to Elastic’s release cycles, pricing. Also, using features outside free tier may cost.
Flexible: since you can reuse existing telemetry destinations; potential savings if you avoid “collect → Elastic only” path. You may avoid paying for features you don’t need. Also, being open or vendor-neutral can help.
But maintaining extra infrastructure (collector fleet, managing exporters, extra bandwidth, potentially paying for multiple tools) incurs cost. Also support/licensing for BindPlane may have costs.
Upgrade / Version Compatibility
Good if you stay within Elastic ecosystem; versioned releases of Elastic Agent + Fleet Server are tested. Upgrading policies is smooth.
Challenges when integrating with external tools / non-Elastic outputs; some integrations may lag. Also when you want to upgrade OTel-based components or custom plugins, compatibility issues may arise.
Because BindPlane uses a modular / OTel-based approach, upgrading OTel collectors / exporters is possible; you can adopt newer versions gradually.
But sometimes new OTel versions introduce breaking changes; or exporter schema mismatches; or some upstream integrations not yet supported. Also collector changes may need reconfiguration.
Customizability & Flexibility
Good for standard use cases. Integration modules are detailed and you can customize many aspects of data collection. Policies allow enabling/disabling.
Less flexible for “branching logic” in the agent (e.g. send logs to multiple sinks, conditional transforms) compared to more customizable pipelines (Logstash / custom collectors). Also, less persistent buffering built in.
More flexible in terms of what you can collect, where you send, and how transforms happen, especially via OTel pipelines. Can more easily adapt to multi-vendor needs.
But building solid custom pipelines and maintaining them needs effort. Less mature documentation / fewer prebuilt dashboards in some cases. More possibility of misconfiguration.
There are no rows in this table
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.