Centreon vs Checkmk comparison

Centreon and Checkmk are both solutions in the Network Monitoring Software category. Centreon is ranked #27 with an average rating of 7.3, while Checkmk is ranked #17 with an average rating of 8.3. Centreon holds a 1.2% mindshare in NMS, compared to Checkmk’s 1.4% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of Centreon users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Checkmk users who would recommend it.

Centreon

Read 31 Centreon reviews

8,544 Views
6,835 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

Checkmk

Read 9 Checkmk reviews

8,433 Views
6,578 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Centreon

Checkmk

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

Centreon and Checkmk are competitive solutions in the monitoring industry. Centreon takes the lead due to its notable scalability and customization capabilities.

Features: Centreon excels in scalability, integration ease, and plugin availability, providing a comprehensive monitoring platform. Users also value its maintenance scheduling and detailed reporting features. Meanwhile, Checkmk stands out with auto-discovery and rule-based configuration that ease the monitoring setup significantly. It also offers custom monitoring checks and efficient alerting systems.

Room for Improvement: Centreon needs to improve its downtime settings for multiple devices and enhance web app monitoring and cloud service integration. Improving configuration processes and mobile app capabilities is recommended. Checkmk can enhance alert management to avoid stale notifications and focus on creating a user-friendly interface. Adding agentless monitoring options is also suggested.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Centreon offers various deployment options, including on-premises and public cloud. While customer support is responsive, 24/7 availability and more service package flexibility are needed. Checkmk is praised for its quality customer support but faces initial deployment challenges due to frequent customization, impacting setup complexity for some users.

Pricing and ROI: Centreon offers competitive pricing reflecting its extensive features with open-source options. In contrast, Checkmk's affordability is appealing, especially for budget-conscious organizations. Both generate significant ROI through efficiency gains and cost reduction, with Centreon's features justifying its cost and Checkmk offering satisfactory performance for its price.

To learn more, read our detailed Centreon vs. Checkmk Report (Updated: August 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Centreon vs. Checkmk

August 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 908,745 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Centreon

Ranking in Network Monitoring Software

27th

Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring

27th

Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software

21st

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Checkmk

Ranking in Network Monitoring Software

17th

Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring

24th

Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software

20th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Server Monitoring (10th)

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Centreon is 1.2%, down from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Checkmk is 1.4%, down from 3.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Network Monitoring Software Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Checkmk	1.4%
Centreon	1.2%
Other	97.4%

Network Monitoring Software

Featured Reviews

Sulesh PK

Monitoring and Operations Pilot at Egis S.A.

Experience enhanced monitoring with real-time alerts and efficient support

I would like to see automation in the poller features, as currently, the poller is not automated. If we could automate the addition or removal of hosts in the poller, it would improve efficiency. Sometimes, Centreon does not show the status of services as updated, which should be addressed. Additionally, enhancements are needed in identifying configuration issues, providing real-time alerts in case of issues, and improving the HTTP configuration tasks, as Centreon does not currently display issues with HTTP links, requiring manual investigation.

Read full review

reviewer1704309

IT Administrator at a construction company with 201-500 employees

Utilizing data monitoring capabilities and scripting potential to optimize system management

I frequently program functions with PowerShell, and although Bash could be used, my specialization is in PowerShell. Two of us focus on programming in PowerShell for infrastructure optimization. I set up a dedicated server to run scripts every hour, generating files for Checkmk output. However, Checkmk does not allow running scripts at varying intervals. I am working on this in the raw version of Checkmk.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"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."

"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."

"We and our customers have saved so much time that we are acting instead of reacting to a situation in a positive way."

"Predetermined templates allow for simple and fast service monitoring configuration."

"Centreon's user-friendly dashboard and minimal resource requirements lead to significant time and cost savings."

"Centreon helps me detect where the problem is quickly. When we resolve a problem quickly, this lowers our overall costs."

"We have all our tickets inside Centreon in real-time and can monitor a lot of ELP and CLN in real-time for application purposes."

"E-mail alert notifications are valuable."

More Centreon pros

"Checkmk was built on a platform that was user-friendly, and I could build my charts easily."

"The initial setup of Checkmk was easy...It is a very stable solution."

"The most valuable features of Checkmk are its resource monitoring, infra monitoring, and log factor configuration."

"Overall, from one to ten, I rate Checkmk a nine."

"It's versatile, scalable, and easier to use compared to other solutions like Nagios and OMD."

"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."

"We can monitor multiple sites using the product."

"The alerting system in Checkmk really works properly."

More Checkmk pros

Cons

"They only sell four hour slots for support, so if you have just one question, then you need to pay for four hours."

"The pricing setup costs and licensing weren't very good in the past."

"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 very bad with auto-scanning. It's very monolithic software. It doesn't have microservices and it only has basic clustering. You cannot, for example, have six or seven nodes for Centreon's cloud processes."

"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."

"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."

"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."

More Centreon cons

"It is easy for tech-savvy people, but newcomers might find it intimidating."

"The initial setup is a bit complex."

"Checkmk does not allow running scripts at varying intervals."

"The main challenge for us is that we're moving from Nagios to Checkmk, and we're still getting used to the new way of working."

"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."

"I think that the integration and the exporting of the data collected are areas where Checkmk lacks but should try to improve the most."

"Checkmk does not work too easily with the PowerStore. I use a PowerShell script as Checkmk runs on Linux and a Windows system, connecting with the Checkmk agent."

"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 Checkmk cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is acceptable."

"The solution is very effective, despite the low price."

"They only sell four hour slots for support, so if you have just one question, then you need to pay for four hours. Or, you need to wait until you have enough questions to fill those four hours. They are not flexible in this."

"The solution has a free part and after that threshold, you will need to pay. For example, if you believe you can create an interesting map, most of the time, you will have to pay 10,000 Euros per year for having access to these components."

"Centreon is always available to develop new plugins when needed. The most important thing is that their maintenance account yearly subscription fee includes the fact that they will maintain the new plugins that you requested them to deliver."

"If you need basic monitoring without dashboards, just monitoring, the plugins are very useful and really cheap. If you want a more complete solution with dashboards and reporting, the EMS solution is great and it is not that much more expensive. It's a good value. Really good."

"The price is not too high. Licensing is driven by how many hosts you monitor, but because you can run the agentless version, you don't have to declare every host to Centreon, one at a time. That means you can drive your infrastructure supervision with a very low number of declared hosts."

"Open-source solutions like this can be very cost effective for an organization looking for a product that they can quickly implement, as there is no initial cost and there are no license renewal fees. However, it is important to take into consideration some of the related costs that may come along as needed, such as training, support, and product enhancements."

More Centreon pricing and cost advice

"The product is affordable."

"Checkmk is a fairly reasonably priced solution."

"The price of Checkmk is cheaper compared to other enterprise products."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

908,745 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Construction Company

10%

Computer Software Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

Government

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	14

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	2

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Centreon?

Centreon's pricing is not very expensive. Initially, I rated it seven, but corrected to five out of ten.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Centreon?

I have certain concerns with Centreon, such as being unable to set downtime for multiple devices at once due to the limitation of adding only 50 devices in a single go. Increasing this limit would ...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Centreon?

We are using Centreon for monitoring devices, both LAN and WAN devices. There are subsidiaries for my company, so if any devices go down or there are any service alerts, we receive alerts through C...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Checkmk?

I will get more information about Checkmk when the proof of concept is done. It's going to be before the summer. There will be a report about the tool and a recommendation to use it. So far, it loo...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Checkmk?

Checkmk ( /products/checkmk-reviews ) is a monitoring tool, so that's what I will use it for. Right now, it's not in production, but it's in a proof of concept phase. It looks good, so probably, du...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Checkmk?

I would rate Checkmk an eight out of ten, not knowing the final report.

See all answers

Comparisons

Zabbix vs Centreon

Compared 9% of the time

PRTG Network Monitor vs Centreon

Compared 9% of the time

Datadog vs Centreon

Compared 7% of the time

SolarWinds NPM vs Centreon

Compared 6% of the time

EV Observe vs Centreon

Compared 2% of the time

More Centreon Competitors

Zabbix vs Checkmk

Compared 11% of the time

Icinga vs Checkmk

Compared 5% of the time

PRTG Network Monitor vs Checkmk

Compared 5% of the time

LibreNMS vs Checkmk

Compared 5% of the time

LogicMonitor vs Checkmk

Compared 1% of the time

More Checkmk Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Centreon

August 2026

Download Centreon product report

Buyer's Guide

Checkmk

August 2026

Download Checkmk product report

Overview

Centreon offers a robust IT infrastructure monitoring platform, featuring user-friendly dashboards and real-time monitoring. It excels in scalability and integration, making it suitable for monitoring diverse network environments.

Centreon stands out with its unified monitoring capabilities, providing businesses with user-friendly dashboards and extensive plugins for customization. Its scalability ensures companies can expand monitoring tasks without incurring additional costs. Integration capabilities allow seamless interaction with ticketing systems and automation tools. Centreon offers customizable reporting and effectively manages downtimes, providing real-time feedback and proactive maintenance through Business Activity and Anomaly Detection features. Despite its strengths, users find areas for improvement including downtime scheduling, API functionalities, UI enhancements, end-to-end monitoring, and documentation. Businesses are increasingly demanding better automation, network discovery, cloud monitoring, and notification options.

What are Centreon's standout features?

Unified Monitoring: Delivers a comprehensive monitoring platform for IT infrastructure.
User-Friendly Dashboards: Offers intuitive and customizable dashboards for efficient monitoring.
Extensive Plugins: Enables flexibility and customization through numerous plugins.
Scalability: Allows expansion of monitoring duties without additional costs.
Integration Capabilities: Seamlessly integrates with ticketing systems and other tools.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Cost Efficiency: Minimized resolution time through proactive maintenance features.
Ease of Use: Simplifies monitoring with its user-friendly interface.
Proactive Issue Resolution: Real-time monitoring and alerts help prevent service outages.
Customizable Reporting: Adapts reports to meet specific organizational requirements.
Diverse Network Management: Capable of handling diverse IT environments efficiently.

Centreon is implemented across industries to monitor IT infrastructures, including networks, servers, and applications. Companies leverage it to track server performance, manage network devices, and receive timely alerts on device status. Its ability to integrate with ticketing systems and automation tools streamlines operations, enhancing global IT infrastructure monitoring and customer service management with real-time feedback and issue resolution.

Centreon

Checkmk provides a comprehensive monitoring solution designed to streamline IT infrastructure management with features like auto-discovery, custom checks, and effective alerting.

Checkmk serves as a powerful tool for organizations managing large networks of servers, databases, and network appliances across multiple locations. It simplifies monitoring tasks with features like auto-discovery, custom scripting, and Slack integration. Users benefit from its resource monitoring capabilities and scalability, although there are areas for improvement, such as alert acknowledgment and greater usability. It supports both Linux and Windows environments, enabling effective oversight of IT infrastructure. The growing body of documentation enhances its adaptability in complex settings.

What are the key features of Checkmk?

Auto-Discovery: Identifies new hosts and applies monitoring rules automatically.
Custom Monitoring Checks: Tailor checks for databases and specific applications.
Slack Integration: Receive downtime alerts directly in Slack channels.
Automation for Scripts: Streamline repetitive tasks with scripts.
Effective Alerting System: Offers timely notifications on network activities.

What benefits can users expect?

Resource Efficiency: Saves time on configuration with automated features.
Scalability: Easily adapts to growing network and system requirements.
Cost-Effectiveness: Suitable option for budget-conscious users.
User-Friendly Setup: Easy to configure, reducing the learning curve.

Industries deploying Checkmk frequently utilize it for monitoring IT infrastructure, including servers and network appliances, to manage proactive issue identification and compliance. Companies employ it in the proof of concept phase or for ongoing monitoring, covering hosts, services, and custom application metrics.

Checkmk

Sample Customers

Airbus, Bollore, BT, Canal Plus, Kuehne Nagel, Limagrain, LVMH, Oberthur Technologies, Orange, Darty, Addax Petroleum, Plastic Omnium, Auchan, Valeo, Saint Gobin, Clarins, Hugo Boss, JC Decaux, French Government (Defense, Justice, Environment, Agriculture), OptiComm, Thales, Zeiss.

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

Centreon vs. Checkmk

August 2026

Free Report: Centreon vs. Checkmk

Find out what your peers are saying about Centreon vs. Checkmk and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

908,745 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.