# Pingdom — Uptime Monitoring & Status Pages

Pingdom by SolarWinds Worldwide, LLC holds a panel rating of 1.5/5 from 6 AI judges (category median 3/5), as of 2026-11-02. Provenance: Rest of world; sovereignty: not determined.

- Vendor: SolarWinds Worldwide, LLC (https://www.pingdom.com)
- Category: [Uptime Monitoring & Status Pages](https://whats-best.ai/software/uptime-monitoring.md)
- Provenance (editorial classification): Rest of world
- Canonical page: https://whats-best.ai/software/uptime-monitoring/pingdom
- Alternatives: https://whats-best.ai/software/uptime-monitoring/pingdom/alternatives ([markdown](https://whats-best.ai/software/uptime-monitoring/pingdom/alternatives.md))
- Data as of: 2026-11-06 · evaluated 2026-11-02 · oldest source captured 2026-11-01

**AI-generated.** Every score, rationale and verdict here is written by a panel of AI judges from public evidence — an analysis, not a hands-on test. Every fact quotes the vendor page it was read from. No score can be bought. How scores are made: https://whats-best.ai/methodology

## At a glance

- Vendor: SolarWinds Worldwide, LLC
- Headquarters: Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Data hosting: Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Free plan: Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026

## The panel's verdict

Pingdom, from SolarWinds Worldwide, LLC (USA, with SolarWinds Software Europe DAC in Ireland per the SolarWinds privacy policy), is judged here on a single captured page: its public API documentation. It is strongest where that documentation is richest — checks and locations scores 5–6 for HTTP, TCP, ping, DNS, UDP and mail checks, keyword validation, certificate verification with days-before-expiry alerting, one-minute check resolution, probe regions EU, NA, APAC and LATAM, and transaction checks by script or recording. Everything around the customer is bare: status pages scores 0, alerting and on-call and reports and reliability each score 2, with no public information on alert channels, escalation, on-call schedules, uptime or SLA reports, or retention. Automation and teams scores 4–5 on a REST API at version 3.1 with a downloadable OpenAPI specification and bulk check changes, though the capture shows nothing on single sign-on, team roles or audit logs. The widest spread is sovereignty, 0–2: the security officer weighed the named contracting entities while five of six judges scored 0 on a capture silent on residency, subprocessors and a data processing agreement.

**Speaks for it:**
- Checks and locations scores 5–6, with HTTP, TCP, ping, DNS, UDP and mail checks, keyword content validation, and certificate verification that treats an invalid certificate as down
- Transaction checks can be built from a script or a browser recording, with click, fill and wait steps and page-state validations that judges tied to testing checkout and login flows
- Check resolution runs down to one minute, with probes selectable across the EU, NA, APAC and LATAM regions
- Automation and teams scores 4–5 on a documented REST API at version 3.1 with a downloadable OpenAPI specification, read or read/write tokens, and a bulk call to pause or re-time many checks at once

**Held against it:**
- Status pages scores 0, with no public information on incident pages, components, subscribers or custom domains
- Alerting and on-call sits at 2, with no public information on delivery channels, escalation rules, on-call schedules or what messages cost
- Reports and reliability sits at 2, with no public information on uptime or SLA reports, retention periods, export, or the vendor's own availability record
- We found no public information on confirming a failure from a second probe before alerting, private probe locations, heartbeat or cron checks, or maintenance windows
- Every sovereignty attribute is unknown; the captured material names only the contracting entities — SolarWinds Worldwide, LLC in the USA, with SolarWinds Software Europe DAC in Ireland, per the SolarWinds privacy policy

**Best for:**
- You want broad synthetic coverage — HTTP, TCP, ping, DNS, UDP and mail checks with certificate monitoring — at one-minute resolution across the EU, NA, APAC and LATAM regions
- You need to monitor a multi-step user flow such as checkout or login, using transaction checks built from a script or a browser recording
- Your team wants to manage checks programmatically, with a REST API at version 3.1, a downloadable OpenAPI specification and a bulk call to pause or re-time many checks at once

**Avoid if:**
- You need a customer-facing status page with components, incident updates and subscribers — the status pages criterion is scored 0
- Your on-call rotation depends on documented alert channels, escalation and acknowledgement; alerting and on-call sits at 2, showing alerts fire but not how they reach a person overnight
- You must show uptime or SLA history for a renewal or a client report; reports and reliability sits at 2, with no public information on uptime reports, retention or export
- You cannot contract before data residency and a data processing agreement are proven; every sovereignty attribute is listed as unknown, and scores run 0–2

## Scores by judge and criterion

Scores out of 5, each judge scoring independently against the published rubric (v1). "n/r" = not rated: the vendor publishes no price, or the judge found no public information on that criterion.

| Criterion | The Agency Developer | The SaaS Platform Engineer | The Customer Support Lead | The E-Commerce Operations Manager | The Information Security Officer | The Skeptic |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Checks, locations & failure confirmation | 3/5 | 2.5/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 |
| Alerting, escalation & on-call | 1/5 | 1/5 | 1/5 | 1/5 | 1/5 | 1/5 |
| Status pages & incident communication | n/r | n/r | n/r | n/r | n/r | n/r |
| API, monitoring as code & team administration | 2/5 | 2/5 | 2/5 | 2.5/5 | 2/5 | 2.5/5 |
| Uptime reports, data & the vendor's own reliability | 1/5 | 1/5 | 1/5 | 1/5 | 1/5 | 1/5 |
| European sovereignty | n/r | n/r | n/r | n/r | 1/5 | n/r |
| Pricing transparency | n/r | n/r | n/r | n/r | n/r | n/r |
| **Weighted verdict** | **2/5** | **1.5/5** | **1.5/5** | **2/5** | **1.5/5** | **2/5** |

### The judges

- **The Agency Developer** (v1.0): Runs hosting and maintenance at a fifteen-person web agency with sixty client sites on WordPress, TYPO3 and Shopware. Has learned about an expired certificate from a client's angry phone call once and does not want a second time. Wants HTTP, keyword, SSL and domain expiry checks set up in bulk, client groups with their own status pages and monthly uptime reports, and a price per monitor that still works at two hundred monitors.
- **The SaaS Platform Engineer** (v1.0): Platform engineer at a forty-person B2B SaaS in Berlin, one of four people on the on-call rotation. Wants multi-step API checks with assertions, kept in Terraform next to the services they test, failures confirmed from a second location before anyone is woken, phone calls and escalation when an alert is not acknowledged, and a status page that updates without someone logging in at 3 a.m.
- **The Customer Support Lead** (v1.0): Leads a support team of nine at a software company whose customers are tax advisers and payroll offices. During the last outage the team answered three hundred tickets that all asked the same question. Wants a status page on the company's own domain with components customers recognise, incident templates, subscribers notified by email, a private page for the largest accounts, and an uptime history they can point to in a contract renewal.
- **The E-Commerce Operations Manager** (v1.0): Runs operations for an online shop selling garden furniture in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, with half the year's revenue between March and June. The homepage once answered 200 while the checkout threw an error for six hours. Wants the checkout and the payment page checked, not only the homepage, an SMS or call to whoever is on duty that night, and a report that shows the agency what the downtime cost.
- **The Information Security Officer** (v1.0): Information security officer at a mid-sized logistics company that falls under NIS2 and is working towards ISO 27001. Needs every outage recorded with detection time, response and resolution, in a form an auditor accepts. Reads the subprocessor list before the feature page, because the on-call staff's mobile numbers and the status page subscribers are personal data, and wants single sign-on and an audit log before anyone gets a login.
- **The Skeptic** (v1.0): Has seen "30-second checks from 20 locations" that paged the whole team for a single probe's network glitch, a status page that went down with the product it reported on, and "unlimited SMS" with a fair-use clause on page nine. Asks how a failure is confirmed, how long the history is kept and whether it can be exported, where the monitor itself publishes its own outages — and what leaving would cost.

## European sovereignty — proven facts

Built only from facts on the vendor's own pages; a dimension we could not prove is left open, never scored as zero. Headline: not determined.

| Dimension | Finding | Points | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | — |
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | — |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | — |
| Open source | Not determined | — | — |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | — |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | — |

## Key facts

Each fact is the vendor's own statement, cited to the source page it was read from ([S*n*] → Sources).

**Integrations**
- API capability: yes [S1]
- API type: yes [S1]
- API version: 3.1 [S1]
- Auth basic supported: yes [S1]
- Auth bearer: yes · no [S1]
- Auth token: api_token [S1]
- Base URL https required: https://api.pingdom.com · yes [S1]
- Best practice cache: yes [S1]
- Checks list limit: 25000 · 25000 [S1]
- Endpoint actions: list_alerts · GET /actions [S1]
- Endpoint analysis: GET /analysis/{checkid} [S1]
- Endpoint checks list: GET /checks [S1]
- Gzip: yes [S1]
- Json responses: yes [S1]
- Openapi spec download: yes [S1]
- Parameter formats: query_string · json_body [S1]
- Php example: yes [S1]
- Rate limit exceeded status: 429 [S1]
- Rate limiting: Req-Limit-Short · Req-Limit-Long · yes [S1]
- Token access levels: Read access · Read/Write [S1]

**Pricing**
- Responsetime threshold plan restriction: no [S1]

**Product**
- Bulk check modification: PUT /checks [S1]
- Certificate verification: yes · yes [S1]
- Check resolution: 5 · 1 · 5 · 15 · 30 · 60 [S1]
- Check types: http · httpcustom · tcp · ping · dns · udp · smtp · pop3 · imap [S1]
- Content validation: yes [S1]
- Ipv6: yes [S1]
- Max check resolution: 1 [S1]
- Probe region filters: EU · NA · APAC · LATAM [S1]
- Tagging: 64 [S1]
- Tms script commands: go_to · click · fill · check · uncheck · sleep · select_radio · select · basic_auth · submit · wait_for_element · wait_for_contains [S1]
- Tms validations: url · exists · not_exists · contains · not_contains · field_contains · field_not_contains · is_checked · is_not_checked · radio_selected · dropdown_selected · dropdown_not_selected [S1]
- Transaction check types: script · recording [S1]

## Questions

### Is Pingdom European?

No. whats-best.ai classifies Pingdom as Rest of world.

### Where does Pingdom store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.

### Does Pingdom have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.

### What are the best alternatives to Pingdom?

As of 2 Nov 2026, the panel rates [Hyperping (3.5/5)](https://whats-best.ai/software/uptime-monitoring/hyperping), [Checkly (3.5/5)](https://whats-best.ai/software/uptime-monitoring/checkly) and [openstatus (3.5/5)](https://whats-best.ai/software/uptime-monitoring/openstatus) highest among the other 14 Uptime Monitoring & Status Pages products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is [Hyperping](https://whats-best.ai/software/uptime-monitoring/hyperping) (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: [how scores are made](https://whats-best.ai/methodology#ordering). The full list, with European products first: [Pingdom alternatives](https://whats-best.ai/software/uptime-monitoring/pingdom/alternatives).

## Head-to-head

- [Pingdom vs StatusCake](https://whats-best.ai/compare/pingdom-vs-statuscake.md)

## What this page leaves out

- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (docs.pingdom.com/api). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page.
- 15 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material.
- 4 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material.
- 2 data facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material.

## Sources

- [S1] API documentation: https://docs.pingdom.com/api/ (checked 2026-11-01)

---

Cite as: whats-best.ai, "Pingdom — Uptime Monitoring & Status Pages", AI panel analysis, as of 2026-11-06. https://whats-best.ai/software/uptime-monitoring/pingdom

Corrections: https://whats-best.ai/correct/1354?target=page