We performed a comparison between Centreon and Elastic Observability based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Predetermined templates allow for simple and fast service monitoring configuration."
"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."
"E-mail alert notifications are valuable."
"We are alerted on service impacts and not when something is down. We have saved a lot of time on non-business-hours intervention."
"We have a single GUI where we can view the status of all our infrastructure."
"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."
"What we like about it is that, whereas with Nagios, by design, if you have five or six data centers, you have to open five or six web pages to see what's going on, In Centreon, this is all included in one page, a single site, one dashboard. You don't have to jump from one specific dashboard to the other."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring of servers and networks, because we have a lot of them and need to maintain control."
"The architecture and system's stability are simple."
"Elastic Observability significantly improves incident response time by providing quick access to logs and data across various sources. For instance, searching for specific keywords in logs spanning over a month from multiple data sources can be completed within seconds."
"Elastic APM has plenty of features, such as the Elastic server for Kibana and many additional plugins. It's a comprehensive tool when used as a logging platform."
"The most valuable feature of Elastic Observability is the text search."
"The solution is open-source and helps with back-end logging. It is also easy to handle."
"Machine learning is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The solution allows us to dig deep into data."
"The solution has been stable in our usage."
"I would like to see a better UI, one which is more responsive."
"Improvements I would like to see include a discovery solution, better reports, and end-to-end monitoring."
"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 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."
"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 would like to see an improvement of the communication with big data systems, because Centreon is a monitoring system. In our point of view, Centreon should be a part of a source for a big data system, not a big data system itself. So, it should be easier to add data from the Centreon system to a big data system. For example, it should be able to teach machine learning."
"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."
"The solution needs to use more AI. Once the product onboards AI, users would more effectively be able to track endpoints for specific messages."
"Elastic Observability’s price could be improved."
"The solution would be better if it was capable of more automation, especially in a monitoring capacity or for the response to abnormalities."
"More web features could be added to the product."
"If we had some pre-defined templates for observability that we could start using right away after deploying it – instead of having to build or to change some of the dashboards – that would be helpful."
"They need more skills in the market. There are not enough skills in the market. It is not pervasive enough on the market, in my opinion. In other words, there isn't a big enough user base."
"The auto-discovery isn't nearly as good. That's a big portion of it. When you drop the agent onto the JVM and you're trying to figure things out, having to go through and manually do all that is cumbersome."
"Elastic Observability needs to have better standardization, logging, and schema."
Centreon is ranked 11th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 27 reviews while Elastic Observability is ranked 10th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 22 reviews. Centreon is rated 8.6, while Elastic Observability 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 Elastic Observability writes "The user interface framework lets us do custom development when needed. ". Centreon is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios Core, Icinga and ManageEngine OpManager, whereas Elastic Observability is most compared with Dynatrace, New Relic, AppDynamics, Azure Monitor and Sentry. See our Centreon vs. Elastic Observability report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors and best Cloud Monitoring Software 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.