We performed a comparison between Centreon and Checkmk based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Monitoring Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring of servers and networks, because we have a lot of them and need to maintain control."
"Predetermined templates allow for simple and fast service monitoring configuration."
"The most important feature is that it permits us to receive alarms if there is an incident within the infrastructure. The feature I love the most is the reporting feature, the MBI (Monitoring Business Intelligence) which permits us to send advanced reports to our customers in PDF format or in Doc format. We also deploy Centreon Map which gives our customers intuitive views of their information system."
"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."
"Valuable features include the ability to schedule downtime, intensity or depth of monitoring which it does, different plugin packs, Centreon MAP, Centreon BI."
"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 are alerted on service impacts and not when something is down. We have saved a lot of time on non-business-hours intervention."
"You can concentrate and orchestrate several other solutions from other vendors. You can consolidate those solutions all in one place, then maintain and monitor from that single point. This creates ease of use. It is a very powerful solution from this point of view."
"The most valuable features of Checkmk are its resource monitoring, infra monitoring, and log factor configuration."
"It's versatile, scalable, and easier to use compared to other solutions like Nagios and OMD."
"The initial setup of Checkmk was easy...It is a very stable solution."
"We can monitor multiple sites using the product."
"I really like the auto-discovery feature."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it has a lot of different pieces, and they all work together...It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"Improvements are needed in the area of cloud monitoring, as that's a newer feature."
"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 would like to see more plugins. That is something it needs. There is also room for improvement through dynamic thresholds, or self-discover thresholds. I would also like to see a discovery feature that could map the whole network environment and automatically suggest things."
"Centreon needs to improve the granularity of the data as well as the graphical data. It would also be better to if there was improvement to the filtering/grouping system as well as the creation of views."
"The problem with the reporting is you have to configure the report, and after that, you will have the same report every month, every week, every day. You have to sync it in order to have a great report."
"The most important issue is the capability to interconnect with other systems. It already exists for some of them. For example, the Stream Connector is something we use to populate data in another system. This kind of facility for connecting should exist for all products that it makes sense to have connected to a monitoring solution."
"Sometimes, when the GUI and some of the search fields are being reset, and I return to the page, then I have to set them again. Therefore, some improvement on the UI and the filtering is needed."
"I think Centreon's security could be improved by leveraging AI. That's where things are heading in the industry."
"In Checkmk, the documentation can probably be improved a bit more."
"Sometimes we receive alerts, and it can become annoying when you acknowledge an alert. It is very clunky when you acknowledge the alert. The process is not very intuitive, and there are instances where it feels a bit cumbersome to acknowledge an alert."
"It is easy for tech-savvy people, but newcomers might find it intimidating."
"I think that the integration and the exporting of the data collected are areas where Checkmk lacks but should try to improve the most."
"If an alert is generated for a specific pattern in the log, and if Checkmk catches that log, it will stay there even after the alert is resolved."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
Centreon is ranked 11th in Network Monitoring Software with 27 reviews while Checkmk is ranked 21st in Network Monitoring Software with 6 reviews. Centreon is rated 8.6, while Checkmk is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Centreon writes "Proactive reporting guides our NOC on what needs to be fixed, saving them time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Checkmk writes "A reasonably priced tool for system and application monitoring". Centreon is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios Core, Icinga and WhatsUp Gold, whereas Checkmk is most compared with Zabbix, Icinga, Netdata, Nagios XI and PRTG Network Monitor. See our Centreon vs. Checkmk report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors, and best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all Network Monitoring Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.