Which statement is NOT true about a hosted or managed option of an open source monitoring tool?

The statement regarding cost in relation to self-hosted options and hosted or managed versions of open source monitoring tools can be misleading. While self-hosted solutions may seem cost-effective at first, they come with overhead costs including server maintenance, infrastructure management, and the potential need for additional personnel to manage these tasks. In contrast, hosted options typically provide ease of use with scalability and support built-in, which can justify a higher upfront cost. As such, hosted options might incur higher costs due to the comprehensive services they offer, which are often necessary for effective monitoring at scale.

The other statements accurately reflect the characteristics of hosted or managed options. For instance, implementing a hosted version of an open-source monitoring tool alleviates many of the scalability concerns that users might face with self-hosting. Additionally, hosted options typically come with enhanced technical support that surpasses what one would receive from using a self-hosted version, especially for troubleshooting and updates. Finally, users do not need extensive retraining when switching to a managed service based on an open-source tool, since the core functionalities and interfaces often remain familiar.