We performed a comparison between Centreon and SCOM 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."
"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."
"For servers and for applications, it was very, very efficient."
"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."
"The single-pane view provides us a view of all of our network infrastructure, and it is one of the most important tools that we use to see the status of our customers' networks."
"The product is available in ISO image format, ready for deployment. Centreon also has a comprehensive guide and documentation that are simple and easy to follow."
"E-mail alert notifications are valuable."
"We have a single GUI where we can view the status of all our infrastructure."
"The customizable reports and dashboards are really flexible. We started this partnership with Centreon, when we were looking for a solution, because of the flexibility of the reporting. That's what we found to be most attractive in the solution. You can display the data as you want."
"It works better than other products I’ve used – namely SolarWinds, which is cumbersome and error prone for web app monitoring. SCOM is not."
"The product has helped our organization with in-depth monitoring."
"Because it's Windows-based, it actually reports quite well. It reports everything you can think of on the Windows server and allows you to monitor anything. It's excellent for those in the Windows world as it's very good at it."
"The product’s auto-remediation feature helps with automation."
"I like the historical reporting of observer metrics."
"We have found the scalability capabilities to be okay."
"The solution primarily drives system information, and I believe it works fine."
"It is a user-friendly product that requires almost no maintenance."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"To get it started is a lot of work, since it comes empty. We had to push information into it to make it work."
"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."
"It is necessary to improve service monitoring of database services in the free version."
"This solution lacks service monitoring in the cloud."
"Opening a ticket on the website of Centreon can be difficult for my colleague, but not for me because my English is good. However, my colleague doesn't speak English well, as our company is in Quebec and our first language is French."
"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."
"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."
"All of the areas of reporting are very bad and need to be improved."
"The price could be improved."
"System Center just provided upgrade and update features for Windows clients, and Windows systems, and did not support Linux, Android, or iOS, and other operating systems. They need to provide better integration with other operating systems if they don't already."
"The initial setup should be easier to complete."
"I would like to better be able to monitor Oracle processes."
"There could be more integration of SIM in the solution."
"In terms of features that could be improved, I would say the agent integration into the operating system. We are having difficulties integrating Linux into some of the networking devices."
"Then there is also an issue with capacity and limited space. That is something that needs to be improved."
Centreon is ranked 10th in Network Monitoring Software with 27 reviews while SCOM is ranked 11th in Network Monitoring Software with 77 reviews. Centreon is rated 8.6, while SCOM is rated 7.8. 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 SCOM writes "Has a good reporting engine, but its monitoring of the cloud-based environment could be improved". Centreon is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios Core, Icinga and Elastic Observability, whereas SCOM is most compared with Zabbix, Dynatrace, Datadog, AppDynamics and Nagios XI. See our Centreon vs. SCOM report.
See our list of best Network 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.
