We performed a comparison between Centreon and Kaseya Traverse 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."
"Centreon helps me detect where the problem is quickly. When we resolve a problem quickly, this lowers our overall costs."
"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... 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."
"Centreon's most valuable feature is Opsgenie."
"Predetermined templates allow for simple and fast service monitoring configuration."
"I can't point to one valuable feature. All of Centreon is good."
"Valuable features include the ability to schedule downtime, intensity or depth of monitoring which it does, different plugin packs, Centreon MAP, Centreon BI."
"The downtimes feature is helpful. If the ISP is doing some maintenance on its network, we have the option to put downtime on the devices or the services, so we won't get any false alarms."
"For servers and for applications, it was very, very efficient."
"Everything is running seamlessly on the solution, to the point where you don't see any gap."
"It is a pretty stable solution...It is a pretty stable solution."
"Kaseya Traverse is a very stable solution and very sustainable in terms of what the market wants, what is out there, price-wise and functionality features. They're quite competitive and they are always innovating."
"The remote support and data collection features are great."
"Most of the features are pretty good and the solution is user friendly."
"It's a simple and humble tool."
"We have found the solution to be very flexible to our requirements. We have been able to configure it on-premise effectively when we were using less of the cloud."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"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."
"There are improvements that they need to make to their API. When we're using different systems and we want to disable monitoring for a specific server, we still can't do that through the API. That's something that's lacking."
"To get it started is a lot of work, since it comes empty. We had to push information into it to make it work."
"Release management and quality of testing need improvement, because with each major upgrade we have many issues coming in. Then, it takes several minor upgrades to get rid of them."
"I think Centreon's security could be improved by leveraging AI. That's where things are heading in the industry."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the area of artificial intelligence. The product gives us a lot of information, but it's only information. We want the product to do more auto-remediation."
"Centreon is actually missing an easy way to create a trendline for the metrics. Actually it is possible to create it, but you need a good knowledge of math, Centreon, and RRD."
"Dashboards and Central Protection were an issue. Also, database monitoring was not there. Even though they said that it was there at an additional cost, that tool was very basic. We couldn't have device configuration backup also."
"In terms of what could be improved, we are innovating all the time, as well as having a look at different avenues so that the strategy follows the structure. I think the software is still a little bit too new to actually fully asses what it has."
"We've noticed a few bugs as of late. However, this seems to only be in the reporting part of the product."
"Reporting is tedious and not organized in the way customers expect."
"Reporting is a bit difficult."
"Kaseya Traverse can improve by adding a Service Map to help us create a configuration management database (CMDB), this would be helpful for us."
"The tool needs to have some AI capabilities, which it lacks currently."
Centreon is ranked 10th in Network Monitoring Software with 27 reviews while Kaseya Traverse is ranked 67th in Network Monitoring Software with 7 reviews. Centreon is rated 8.6, while Kaseya Traverse is rated 6.6. 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 Kaseya Traverse writes "A stable network monitoring tool requiring an easy initial setup phase". Centreon is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios Core, Icinga and Nagios XI, whereas Kaseya Traverse is most compared with LogicMonitor, Auvik Network Management (ANM), PRTG Network Monitor and SolarWinds NPM. See our Centreon vs. Kaseya Traverse report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software 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.
