We performed a comparison between Centreon and Loom Systems based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Datadog, Auvik and others in IT Infrastructure Monitoring."The most valuable feature is that we can manually configure everything we need. After it comes inside the interface of Centreon, you can display it. Because the interface is quite user-friendly, you can manually configure the configuration very deeply, which is very pleasant and useful because you can monitor and see everything on your service list, dashboard, or MAP. The most useful feature for me is that you can create your own plugin and monitoring query."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring of servers and networks, because we have a lot of them and need to maintain control."
"It supports active monitoring so we don't have to use traps. From time to time traps are not very useful because we never know if they are actually working or not. The reporting part is also valuable as are the event logs. Using them we can check right away if something has had a hiccup."
"We use the remote server functionality on some customer sites, because you can see an independent view and are not dependent on a single connection. If you have branch offices or bigger office outside your headquarters, you can use remote servers because if the connection is broken or disrupted, then remote server will obtain a view of your environment and server availability. This is a good point against using other solutions. Because with other solutions, you don't have this feature. Then, you will be blind if you have this type of a situation."
"It is decentralized, which is better, because you can reduce the load from a single system. Also, you get a better view because it's more independent. Then, for the management, it's nice because they have one central system. With that, they can manage all the other systems, as well. This means they don't have to configure each system by system. They can configure it from one single interface."
"I find the product's scalability to be one of the most valuable features since it allows us to add unlimited devices for monitoring and to set up additional polling servers without additional license cost or downtime in our monitoring."
"The dashboards are valuable because they ease troubleshooting and viewing. It becomes easier to locate the source of a problem... The dashboards make it easier to communicate with our clients. They don't want to see the alert console, they want to see a beautiful dashboard representing their network and their business and to watch it in case something is wrong in their environment."
"What I like best about Loom Systems is that you can use it for infrastructure monitoring. I also like that it's a flexible solution."
"The solution is absolutely scalable. If an organization needs to expand it out they definitely can."
"You can develop your own apps within Loom, and they can be configured very simply."
"The RFS portion of the solution is the product's most valuable 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."
"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."
"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."
"It is necessary to improve service monitoring of database services in the free version."
"Currently, we have to go through all of the different templates and take a look at how the template is configured, and how specific parameters may change across different templates with different precedents, megatons, etc. It's a lot of work and involves trial and error. I wish they could simplify the process."
"To get it started is a lot of work, since it comes empty. We had to push information into it to make it work."
"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."
"Improvements I would like to see include a discovery solution, better reports, and end-to-end monitoring."
"The discovery and mapping still takes a lot of human intervention, it's quite resource heavy,"
"The reporting is a bit weak. They should work to improve this aspect of the product."
"The change management within the solution needs to be improved. There needs to be more process automation."
"What's lacking in Loom Systems is the level of priority for each incident. For example, after implementation and there was a huge impact on the client, and the client comes back to you and says that there's an incident, that there needs to be an immediate resolution for it, you'll see severity one, severity two, etc., in Loom Systems, rather than priority levels. It would be better if the incidents can be defined as low priority, medium priority, or high priority."
Centreon is ranked 11th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 27 reviews while Loom Systems is ranked 57th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 4 reviews. Centreon is rated 8.6, while Loom Systems is rated 8.0. 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 Loom Systems writes "Simple and very effective for developing and configuring apps with great integration capabilities". Centreon is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios Core, Icinga and Nagios XI, whereas Loom Systems is most compared with Elastic Search and Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure Monitoring 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.
