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 single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"We are alerted on service impacts and not when something is down. We have saved a lot of time on non-business-hours intervention."
"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."
"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."
"For servers and for applications, it was very, very efficient."
"What I like most about Centreon is that it is very flexible and customizable, based on the user and/or business needs. Centreon is very flexible when it comes to monitoring parameters. We can use scripts found on the internet or scripts created by our infra/apps team. Also, the data visualization features are very simple and straightforward, yet very informative."
"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."
"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 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."
"We can monitor multiple sites using the product."
"The initial setup of Checkmk was easy...It is a very stable solution."
"It's versatile, scalable, and easier to use compared to other solutions like Nagios and OMD."
"The most valuable features of Checkmk are its resource monitoring, infra monitoring, and log factor configuration."
"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."
"I really like the auto-discovery feature."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"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."
"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."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"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."
"This solution lacks service monitoring in the cloud."
"I would like to see a better UI, one which is more responsive."
"The Home view could be improved by adding customization functions that allow users to change the size of the widgets for a more uniform layout."
"I went through a few things with them to do with Centreon MAP, to do with active polygons, being able to draw an area and make that active. The functionality was in the older version of Centreon MAP and in the new version, which was a complete rewrite, they dropped it."
"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."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"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."
"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."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
Centreon is ranked 11th in Network Monitoring Software with 27 reviews while Checkmk is ranked 19th 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 SCOM, whereas Checkmk is most compared with Zabbix, Icinga, Netdata, Observium and SCOM. 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.
