Centreon Reviews

I primarily use Centreon for monitoring networks, servers, systems, and some automations, including DevOps tools like Prometheus. We monitor and configure servers, and if any services or automations are down, we create tickets from ServiceNow. We also manage downtimes during upgrades.

The poller features and host services are the most valuable for me. The downtime feature is very helpful for monitoring. We have only four pollers and most hosts are configured with them. If we add or remove any hosts, we must update the poller manually. Automating this would be beneficial. The network monitoring aspect includes access point switches and firewalls' monitoring. Identifying downtime issues with switches or firewalls is useful. Centreon's real-time monitoring, despite having some manual aspects, supports us in managing our operations effectively.

I would like to see automation in the poller features, as currently, the poller is not automated. If we could automate the addition or removal of hosts in the poller, it would improve efficiency. Sometimes, Centreon does not show the status of services as updated, which should be addressed. Additionally, enhancements are needed in identifying configuration issues, providing real-time alerts in case of issues, and improving the HTTP configuration tasks, as Centreon does not currently display issues with HTTP links, requiring manual investigation.

I have been working with Centreon for almost three years.

The initial setup is very easy; I would rate it eight out of ten.

Centreon is very easy to use and access, and I would rate its scalability eight out of ten. We use other tools for adding and deploying configured devices, but direct access from Centreon would be beneficial.

Technical support from Centreon responds within 24 hours and resolves issues quickly. I would rate their support seven out of ten due to effectiveness in resolving issues.

Neutral

I used Zabbix before switching to Centreon. The switch was due to a better offer in a new job role, but the processes and technical support of Zabbix and Centreon are similar.

The initial setup was straightforward, and I would rate it eight out of ten. It is very easy to configure and access.

Centreon's pricing is not very expensive. Initially, I rated it seven, but corrected to five out of ten.

Overall, I would rate Centreon eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

Centreon is primarily used as a monitoring tool. I work in IT, providing Windows and Linux support, so I mainly handle Windows server support along with application-level support. We configure services on Centreon, and it alerts us if any service is down, necessitating manual intervention. Besides monitoring, we use Centreon to measure and track server performance and availability. Basic alerts, like ping alerts, notify us when a server is down or unreachable through RDP, helping us track server availability. Centreon allows us to create custom dashboards for different IT teams, ensuring they see only relevant alerts, avoiding clutter from unrelated server alerts.

I appreciate Centreon's user-friendly interface, which is much less overwhelming than Icinga's. Its custom view feature allows us to focus on manageable servers, preventing irrelevant alerts from cluttering the dashboard. Additionally, Centreon's ease of integration stands out, as we only need to configure polar settings and port openings, unlike the lengthy process with Icinga. Centreon's user-friendly dashboard and minimal resource requirements lead to significant time and cost savings. Monitoring is a fundamental pillar of technical support, and Centreon streamlines this process, reducing the need for extensive manual checks.

I would like to see Centreon enhanced to monitor web applications. While Centreon excels at server-level monitoring, it lacks the ability to track web app availability and latency, unlike Dynatrace, which is efficient in this area. Incorporating this feature would make Centreon more versatile and beneficial.

I have been working with Centreon for the last two years.

When I moved to Centreon from Icinga, I found the transition very stable. Centreon is a much more straightforward and stable tool compared to Icinga.

We pay based on usage, so scaling Centreon involves purchasing additional licenses.

After setting up polars, we rarely need technical support unless there's a false alert. If issues arise, like services appearing as down in Centreon, technical support helps check the polar-server communication. However, response times can be slow, often leaving us to resolve basic issues in-house.

I previously used Icinga before switching to Centreon. The switch was made because Centreon offers a user-friendly interface that is much less complex than Icinga's.

The initial setup involved assistance from Centreon's support team, which was beneficial due to the complexity of the configurations. While the architecture is understandable, having an expert ensures smoother implementation.

We had support from a member of the Centreon team who assisted in configuring polars and flow issues.

It significantly saves time by automating monitoring tasks and reduces costs as it requires fewer resources. The user-friendly interface allows quick training.

I have experience with Icinga and also compared Centreon with Dynatrace in terms of features.

I recommend Centreon for small-scale organizations seeking technical support solutions. It is ideal for those using Icinga, as Centreon is user-friendly and smoother. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Centreon as an eight.

On-premises

We are using Centreon for monitoring devices, both LAN and WAN devices. There are subsidiaries for my company, so if any devices go down or there are any service alerts, we receive alerts through Centreon.

Centreon allows us to monitor all of our devices on one platform. We are currently monitoring seven companies' LAN and WAN devices, which is very good because there is no need to monitor multiple platforms. We can just see everything on one platform. It also provides the number of hosts and services that are up or down. We can set downtime for maintenance activities or power outages so that no alerts will be shown during those periods.

I have certain concerns with Centreon, such as being unable to set downtime for multiple devices at once due to the limitation of adding only 50 devices in a single go. Increasing this limit would help. Furthermore, reliability is sometimes an issue. Centreon has a developer mode and production mode, but sometimes alerts don't come through in production mode. Additionally, some alerts are not genuine, especially for network reachability.

We have been working with Centreon for one year.

There are times when we face issues with Centreon being in development mode. Sometimes we do not receive alerts, causing business impact, and users ask why no alerts were received. I would rate its stability at seven out of ten.

Although Centreon is generally effective, there are times when we face issues as it is still in development mode, and there are periods of outages. Occasionally, for several hours, we do not receive any alerts, causing a business impact.

Our developer team raises service tickets for Centreon-related issues. If the issue is beyond their control, they contact the Centreon vendor's technical support for resolution. We do not have direct access to Centreon's technical support.

Neutral

We are working on implementing Dynatrace to replace Centreon, but it is not in production yet. Once implemented, Dynatrace will allow us to select devices and check connections and IP addresses, whereas Centreon sometimes has database and alert issues.

I joined the company when Centreon was already in use. I was informed that it has been used since the company started in India and new devices are added for monitoring through the development team.

Our onsite team raises a request task to add new devices into Centreon, and our development team handles it.

Centreon provides timesaving and costsaving benefits as it lets us manage multiple devices on a single platform. Alerts are quick, which allows timely monitoring.

We are considering Dynatrace to replace Centreon.

I would recommend Centreon with some improvements needed, as sometimes database issues occur with high device usage. Overall, it's quite good. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it seven.

On-premises

I use the solution in my company for our supervision purposes. In my company, we supervise all of the infrastructure with the tool. It is a monitoring tool.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that most of its plug-ins are free.

The issue my company has with the tool stems from the fact that it didn't give an on-time response to us. The product collects the information, but it fails to send them via SMS, WhatsApp or Telegram. The solution can be used if you want to get email notifications, which is not good for our company because if someone is not in front of their desktop, you can't receive information about an equipment or LAN that is down.

I have been using Centreon for twelve or thirteen years. I am just a user of the tool.

The tool is not stable, and it may be because we are not using its latest version. Sometimes, there are breakdowns in the tool.

Around seven or eight people use the tool.

I have provided technical support for the solution to deal with the product issues. Sometimes, the solution's technical support says that they will post some updates and make corrections in the stability area of the program. Sometimes, the corrections in the stability area made by the tool's support team do work, and at times, it doesn't work. I rate the technical support a five out of ten.

Neutral

The product's initial setup phase is really easy, even for a beginner.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The tool is cheaply priced.

Before people try to use Centreon, I suggest using Zabbix or SolarWinds. One should try to use Zabbix first and SolarWinds in the second position. If you use Zabbix or SolarWinds and you find that they are not okay with you, then you can use Centreon.

The tool does not meet our company's needs. Even though the tool can collect the information, its metrics are not really easy to be explored or used.

I rate the tool a six out of ten.

On-premises

We're a software solutions provider using Centreon to monitor a client's database, application, and web servers. The system sends an email alert when something goes wrong. 

Currently, we only have one customer using Centreon. Our client is a global automobile manufacturer headquartered in Europe. Our customer was already using Centreon when we started working with them. They approached us about upgrading and perfecting their system. We've also pitched this solution to another car manufacturer based in Germany. 

Centreon helps us monitor our client's systems in real-time using fewer people. Our client is happy with the product because it helps them cut costs. Everything is automatic. Centreon helps measure service performance by modeling IT service maps for critical IT workflows. 

The primary benefit is prevention. Centreon helps us identify and address issues before the system goes down. It reduces related costs by about a third. 

Centreon's most valuable features are preventative maintenance and cost-efficiency. Everything is monitored, and we get a log before the system fails. We have an opportunity to fix the issue and avoid downtime. 

The dashboard is user-friendly, and the solution provides good reporting and visibility. The layout is straightforward. You can click on the drop-down list to select the server you want. The anomaly detection feature helped us reduce our average resolution time by 30 minutes to an hour. 

I think Centreon's security could be improved by leveraging AI. That's where things are heading in the industry.

We have used Centreon for four years.

I rate Centreon eight out of 10 for stability. 

I rate Centreon eight out of 10. The scalability is high enough to monitor our client's infrastructure. 

The deployment was straightforward. It wasn't too complex. We could finish setting up Centreon in less than a day. The implementation strategy depends on the user requirements, context, and scope. 

We connect the solution to the server and configure it to monitor the client's environment. It doesn't take many people to deploy Centreon. We downloaded it off the official web page and asked our IT department to set up a VM. The process involved two or three people, including an application engineer and an IT technician. 

Centreon is a free open-source platform, but customers who need more advanced functionality can pay for premium scripts and plugins. 

I rate Centreon eight out of 10. Centreon is an open-source platform. That's one advantage. You can size this up as needed and add some advanced functionality with plugins. We typically advise a customer to set up a new environment, install Centreon, then decommission their legacy monitoring system. 

Centreon is generally stable overall, but you might have issues if it's configured improperly or you have the wrong firewall setting. Problems with your server or corrupted files on the system might also cause it not to function well. 

Public Cloud

We use Centreon to monitor the server and network devices. It also provides reporting that informs our capacity planning with regard to storage on the server disk. We use it on-premises. We have a central server and around 14 monitoring pollers on the remote side that report to the main server.

I'm the monitoring administrator, so I set up some dashboards for my colleagues and users in the IT department that are customized to provide the information they want to see. They want to look at network devices and create a map of the equipment that allows them to see usage and if something has broken down. 

Centreon's ability to model IT service maps has been crucial for us. It enables us to get a quick look at our business needs. Centreon can measure the service performance to show if everything is working well. 

The reporting and monitoring features are the most valuable. The monitoring is easy to set up, and the reports are filled with helpful information. You can quickly find and fix the problem when there is an incident. 

We use out-of-the-box reports instead of customizing them. When we deploy something, it comes with some reporting templates, so we just use those. We use the existing reporting template to get information about the monitoring device. It's easy to apply the template to our reports. We can do it in two to five minutes.  

Another feature we use is Business Activity, which provides us with an end-user perspective when a service is down or isn't working correctly. This is helpful when monitoring the KPIs. When we see a device or server that isn't working, we find the root cause. 

We also use Plugin Packs to monitor most of our equipment because it's simple to deploy a monitoring template. If I want to monitor a device, I install the Plugin Pack and the required package. If the Plugin Pack doesn't give me the information I want, I can write a plugin to monitor the device. We do this for a few instruments.

Anomaly Detection is another handy feature that we use to discover some issues. I estimate that using Anomaly Detection has cut our resolution time in half. 

Centreon introduced network discovery in the most recent update. However, it doesn't work well. Our previous monitoring tool could discover networking equipment on the network and identify the relationships between the devices. 

I have been using Centreon for about three years now.

Centreon is scalable. We started with a central server and four remote pollers and continued adding some pollers. We can add or remove pollers without problems. Currently, we have around 14 pollers, and they all work well. When I want to add or remove a poller, I don't need to change the configuration on the central server or resize the server. We have around 200 users, and we are monitoring around 5,000 devices.

I rate Centreon's support nine out of 10. They respond quickly when we have issues. Someone is always available. If I open a ticket, I usually get a response in 10 or 15 minutes. 

Positive

We previously used SolarWinds Network Performance Monitor. When we compared the two solutions, we found that Centreon had stronger reporting features and a customizable dashboard. Centreon was also more affordable. SolarWinds' network discovery feature is better, but I think Centreon can improve this aspect. 

Setting up Centreon isn't complex. All the documentation is clear and easy to follow. The total deployment time depends on the size of your deployment. It might take only two or three hours if it's just one monitoring server. You only need to download the application and install it on your network. If you want to start from scratch, setting up the environment might take four hours.

It can take around five to 10 days to deploy for a complex deployment. It might take that long if you need to set up some monitoring on the remote side and deploy a reporting server or other components,

A five-person in-house team deployed the solution with help from Centreon. Their team helped us achieve our goals.

I don't have a lot of information about the price. A different team handles procurement. However, I know the price is based on the number of devices monitored, and you get a discount for a larger number. 

I rate Centreon nine out of 10. This product provides comprehensive reporting for our top management. When my manager asks for a report, it's easy for me to generate one based on the reporting template. We can also set up some level agreements on some services, and from the reports, we can check to see if maintaining this level of equipment will work. 

On-premises

We use it for monitoring our software for illegal components. We look to Centreon to provide a visual representation of the availability of a service.

We use the soluton's dashboard for L1, L2, and L3 IT support. We set alarms and then support can look at the interface to see which element is causing an alarm. It is useful for monitoring and seeing, in a graphical way, what the cause is.

The software shows the data structure with other elements that represent the state of the software. With Centreon, we have automated the way we check for the check file and it automatically creates alarms in our ITSM system.

The most valuable feature is the ability to build an abstraction of service visualization. You can add services to an entity called Business Activities and you can see the state of these activities.

It also provides a nice dashboard, or what's called the Centreon MAP, and you can extract information very well from that for building reports for customers. It gives you a representation of service and business activities. You can access all the information in one place.

We also use Centreon Plugin Packs. They help us support Linux servers' operating systems. When it comes to monitoring things, you can set an agent on the client's operating system or you can have agentless access. For the agent-based monitoring, you need to install it directly on each OS that you want to monitor. For agentless monitoring, you can simply click through the interface to provide a Plugin Pack, and you can run it directly.

It can also help you look at KPIs because calculations can be done directly in Centreon.

Centreon is very bad with auto-scanning. It's very monolithic software. It doesn't have microservices and it only has basic clustering. You cannot, for example, have six or seven nodes for Centreon's cloud processes.

Another area for improvement is auto-remediation.

I have been using Centreon for three years.

The stability depends... For example, on Amazon, we have some problems with processes that fall and we need to restart them. And the software that provides the dashboard is very bad. 

The core service is not fantastic but it's okay.

The scalability of Centreon is very bad because of the nature of the software. It creates a bottleneck at some point and that drives everything else related to the software. 

I believe Centreon is working on a SaaS version of the service, but currently, you cannot have many hosts because of the cost of only one computer or virtual machines. Amazon permits 128 processors and, for VMware, I think it's 28. If you already have 28 CPUs and you add one more, the monitor is dead.

We don't have plans to increase our usage. We have bought Dynatrace and we will be removing Centreon in the next six months.

We have about 150 users of Centreon. Some are managers but they are generally technical people such as project managers and support. I'm the only one involved in deployment and maintenance of the solution.

Centreon's L3 support is great but the L1 and L2 support are bad. The response times depend on the person who responds to the call, but it's not great.

Neutral

We used to use Nagios. The switch to Centreon was not my personal choice, but it was done because we needed access to abstractions, and that is something Nagios cannot do. Nagios doesn't have the same features. You cannot represent things on dashboards like in Centreon.

Personally, I don't have a preference for one over the other. Management made the final choice, but in my opinion, it was for the cosmetic aspects of the product.

It's very simple to set up. A very basic installation takes, perhaps, 50 minutes. You download a package and install it, and then do some configuration. There's nothing special about it.

After, you need IT to structure your business activities with the service. There are some post-configuration operations that need to be done.

We did it by ourselves.

We have seen ROI using Centreon. When you can monitor your whole system there is a gain.

The price is not too high. Licensing is driven by how many hosts you monitor, but because you can run the agentless version, you don't have to declare every host to Centreon, one at a time. That means you can drive your infrastructure supervision with a very low number of declared hosts.

It's very simple to use Centreon's licensing model. When you know the number of hosts, you know the cost of your license. The price includes everything, there are no additional costs.

By comparison, Dynatrace is priced by the number of user agents in the infrastructure being monitored. It's a strict usage calculation for SaaS software like Dynatrace.

Centreon is a nice product that improves on Nagios at times but it's not a very big step forward. Centreon is very much like Nagios.

I would only recommend Centreon for a customer that is not an IT client. It's not great for tuning software and you cannot have more than, say, 5,000 hosts. You can only monitor a small or mid-sized environment. If you need to monitor AWS, you cannot use Centreon, and that's true in general if you need a very large number of instances of Centreon.

Centreon can help to improve the availability of service but that's all. It does enable, for example, fine-tuning of transactions between two applications. It provides a very binary vision. It helps, but it only helps IT support.

Centreon is a great product but it needs to mature. It's a very young company and they need to improve the solution, but the product itself is great.

Centreon is a client application. We use the solution to monitor network infrastructure. In case of an incident, We can fix the issue.

Centreon makes me reactive. It allows the use of signal application over monitoring infrastructure to use signal.

The solution allows us to study more analysis to reduce.

Centreon offers infrastructure monitoring.

Prometheus provides the ability to automate the backup of my infrastructure. This automatic backup capability allows me to integrate it into GitLab for versioning, among other functionalities. Thus, it serves as an additional application that simplifies the work of network engineers.

The solution could have backup automation. It can automatically detect all the applications and infrastructure components, including dynamic protocols, which can be highly beneficial. Automatic detection enables proactive measures, such as triggering remediation processes via API as soon as alerts occur.

I have been using Centreon for one year.

We are trying to study proactive management monitoring because of the working cloud infrastructure. Our team is trying to get a volume of remaining work, and these new proactive tools can benefit us.

The solution is 80% stable.

Infrastructure scalability is smooth because it doesn't break down or have downtime.

The solution is 80% scalable.

The product is quite expensive.

If something renders infrastructure, it enables reacting and accessing meetings as necessary. It provides quick response, typically within a minute or less. The alerts provided are apparent, facilitating the identification of root causes for any issues. Moreover, Centreon offers a lot of plugins. Locating these plugins is straightforward, which eliminates the need for additional tools.

I recommend Centreon because it is user-friendly.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We're a telecom group and we use Centreon to monitor all our services.

Centreon's dashboard is good. Centreon's dashboard provides a single view of all our customers. When there is a problem, Centreon notifies us and works with us to resolve it quickly.

Centreo's dashboards help to improve our visibility and ability to proactively ensure the right data is available at the right time which is important.

We use Centreon's plugin packs to communicate with our telecom locations in Brazil when the host does not have Centreon integrated.

Centreon's ready-to-use connectors and integrations are essential because they provide a comprehensive overview of our organization, which allows us to quickly resolve client issues.

Centreon helps me organize our hosts by stage and monitor our clients.

Centreon is the best for helping monitor our IT infrastructure from cloud to edge and providing holistic visibility.

Centreon helps us align our IT operations with business objectives by identifying problems and resolving them quickly and permanently.

Centreon helps us measure service performance by modeling IT service maps for business-critical IT workflows and metrics. This allows us to see the hierarchy and discover problems. Centreon is a valuable and important tool for addressing these issues.

Centreon helps to consolidate all alerts, KPIs, and business maps as well as manage metrics across domains. We can seamlessly integrate with the client's network.

Centreon's most valuable feature is Opsgenie.

The reporting has room for improvement. The reports could be improved by providing more data and more detailed charts.

I would like Centreon to offer support in Portuguese.

Centreon should have better integration with WhatsApp.

I have been using Centreon for four years.

We use Centreon for every stage in Brazil and the solution is stable.

The scalability is acceptable, but there is room for improvement.

We do not have local support in Brazil, which is challenging due to the language barrier.

Neutral

Our organization previously used Zabbix before switching to Centreon.

The initial setup is complicated because consolidating and configuring the database is a complex process.

We have seen a return on investment and that is why our organization has been using Centreon for over four years.

I give Centreon an eight out of ten.

I recommend Centreon because it is a good solution that configures well.

On-premises

We use it for standard monitoring of 300 to 400 devices, the usual Windows and Linux servers and network equipment. We are monitoring the disk usage and the network ports.

The teams within our NOC get proactive reports which are quite detailed. That saves them a lot of time on having to research or troubleshoot to find an issue. Thanks to Centreon, they are guided to what needs to be fixed.

And it's an invaluable tool for helping to drive business performance excellence and aligning IT operations with business objectives. It's been helping us to engage in smarter reviews of what's happening within our network. We get alerts popping up from time to time, and we can use them to implement permanent fixes or workarounds.

Another benefit is that Centreon has helped measure service performance by modeling IT service maps for business-critical IT workflows. We actually give detailed reports to our customers and they're all based on Centreon's reporting. That ability is very important, a top priority.

The best features that we've come across enable us to create our own monitored instances. For example, we have a SQL script that is being run by Centreon, and it gives us a specific metric on the dashboard that we utilize for monitoring the performance of a third party. We integrate with third-party companies or, in this case, government institutions, and they do not give us any guarantee of the service, and they also don't give us the ability to monitor the service. However, from our side, we can monitor the throughputs with the SQL script that we have running with Centreon.

In addition, the flexibility, customizability, and analytics of Centreon's dashboards are all very good. The dashboards help us see the whole network map, and that is quite valuable for us. In addition, the dashboards have helped to improve our visibility and ability to proactively ensure the right data is available at the right time. Our service desk staff spends most of their time on the dashboards, and they use the proactive monitoring to log service requests to the L2 and L3 support. They've been invaluable in that sense.

The flexibility has given us the ability to add in our own monitoring metrics and that has been quite interesting and very useful for us as well.

We've been using Centreon for close to two years.

We haven't had any stability issues with the solution since we started using it.

The scalability is also good, not that we've needed to do much so far.

We don't yet use the anomaly detection to help alert on unusual or dysfunctional behavior, but that is a feature we want to implement.

We haven't needed to use their tech support so far.

A different team within our organization was involved in the setup, but as I understand it, the guy from Centreon was quite familiar with it, so it was quite easy.

The deployment of Centreon took about two months, but that was mostly due to user adoption by the service desk and NOC teams.

Initially, when we did the setup, we just threw all of our devices into Centreon, and at one stage it became quite bogged down in the sense that there was too much reporting or alerting. But it was quite easy to filter things and to streamline the reporting, enabling us to get exactly what we needed, including the proactive monitoring that we needed. The flexibility that Centreon has given us to do that kind of analysis and streamlining has been invaluable.

I would like to see improvement in the licensing model. You can purchase X number of licenses, up to 1,000 devices or 1,000 instances. Your next batch is 2,000. But what if you only need, say, 1,200? The model could be changed a little bit.

In a different company, I was dealing with SolarWinds, which was okay for what it did, but the licensing for SolarWinds was quite expensive in comparison. In terms of navigating the licensing models, Centreon and SolarWinds are basically the same.

The other option being looked at was SolarWinds. With Centreon, there's the licensed package, but it's also an open-source platform, and that was the driving force behind the decision to go with it.

My advice would be to go ahead with Centreon. Don't waste time, go ahead.

There are still a lot of features that we don't yet use that we are looking into. But overall, so far, it's been very good.

On-premises