Centreon vs Checkmk comparison

Centreon and Checkmk are both solutions in the Network Monitoring Software category. Centreon is ranked #24 with an average rating of 7.3, while Checkmk is ranked #15 with an average rating of 8.3. Centreon holds a 1.4% mindshare in NMS, compared to Checkmk’s 1.7% 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

7,170 Views
5,879 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

Checkmk

Read 9 Checkmk reviews

7,198 Views
5,758 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Centreon

Checkmk

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 9, 2024

Centreon and Checkmk compete in the IT monitoring software category. Centreon has the upper hand with its flexibility in integration and dashboard customization.

Features: Centreon offers scalability, integration flexibility, and customizable dashboards. Its plugin packs and BI reports support comprehensive monitoring. Checkmk provides resource monitoring and integrates with event management. It is appreciated for auto-discovery and rule-based configuration.

Room for Improvement: Centreon could enhance end-to-end monitoring, UI responsiveness, and API functionality. Network and cloud monitoring need improvement, along with a more intuitive alert acknowledgment process. Checkmk is urged to improve its documentation, simplify the interface, and expand integration options. Users recommend increased user-friendliness and better predictive monitoring.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both Centreon and Checkmk operate on-premises, with Centreon also supporting hybrid and public cloud. Centreon's support receives mixed reviews, with calls for 24/7 service and improved response times. Checkmk's support is seen as responsive but needs better onboarding. Deployment is generally straightforward, though Centreon's cloud capabilities provide an advantage.

Pricing and ROI: Centreon is affordable and provides significant ROI, especially with extensive infrastructures. Its open-source nature offsets costs, though licenses can increase expenses. Checkmk is cost-effective in enterprises, offering a good price-to-performance ratio. Centreon's varied pricing may cause confusion, while Checkmk's straightforward pricing is advantageous.

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

Buyer's Guide

Centreon vs. Checkmk

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 893,311 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

24th

Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring

29th

Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software

18th

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

15th

Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring

27th

Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software

17th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Server Monitoring (10th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Centreon is 1.4%, down from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Checkmk is 1.7%, down from 3.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Network Monitoring Software Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Checkmk	1.7%
Centreon	1.4%
Other	96.9%

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

"We have everything we need with the product."

"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."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is that most of its plug-ins are free."

"We picked Centreon because, after an open-source comparison, and given what we want to do, and our skills and experience as well, it was the best solution for us, the most reliable for our services."

"Valuable features include the ability to schedule downtime, intensity or depth of monitoring which it does, different plugin packs, Centreon MAP, Centreon BI."

"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."

"If they have the same issues that we had, which means a lot of pollers spread across the whole infrastructure and no central view to look at the entire status with the need to manage everything together, then it is a good solution."

More Centreon pros

"The alerting system in Checkmk really works properly."

"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."

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

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

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

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

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

More Checkmk pros

Cons

"There is room for improvement in the area of artificial intelligence. The product gives us a lot of information, but it's only information. We want the product to do more auto-remediation."

"The most important issue is the capability to interconnect with other systems. It already exists for some of them. For example, the Stream Connector is something we use to populate data in another system. This kind of facility for connecting should exist for all products that it makes sense to have connected to a monitoring solution."

"Sometimes, Centreon does not show the status of services as updated, which should be addressed."

"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."

"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."

"Improvements are needed in the area of cloud monitoring, as that's a newer feature."

"Where Centreon is weaker is that the initial deployment could be easier."

"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."

More Centreon cons

"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."

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

"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."

"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."

"The initial setup is a bit complex."

"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."

"In Checkmk, the documentation can probably be improved a bit more."

More Checkmk cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is perfect and very cheap if you are a little company or startup. After that, it is quite expensive for a big company."

"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."

"It's quite expensive when you use the Enterprise version, but if you compare it to other providers, it's more like a middle-of-the-line product. It's always good to have a price that is lower, but I would say the price is okay because we get very good support and if we have any other issues we can always contact them. There has never been a time when I didn't get help from them."

"Centreon is better than Nagios XI in regards to cost and support response times, when you have a problem. If you have a problem, it costs money to contact the Nagios XI support."

"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."

"Centreon is an open source product. Thus, there is no need for licensing."

"In terms of licensing, you have to think through if the components that need licensing are really needed. For example, the Map module: If you don't need a map to be shown, I don't see a point in paying for those licenses, if you just use it a couple of times a month or a couple of times a week... You can use the Centreon free version and get the main features. The licensing part is, I would say, only for bigger customers who have the option to pay more and who really need those kinds of modules, fancy reports, etc."

"I would like to see improvement in the licensing model. You can purchase X number of licenses, up to 1,000 devices or 1,000 instances. Your next batch is 2,000. But what if you only need, say, 1,200? The model could be changed a little bit."

More Centreon pricing and cost advice

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

"The product is affordable."

"Checkmk is a fairly reasonably priced solution."

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

893,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Comms Service Provider

Government

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Government

Computer Software Company

Comms Service Provider

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 11% of the time

PRTG Network Monitor vs Centreon

Compared 10% of the time

Datadog vs Centreon

Compared 8% of the time

SolarWinds NPM vs Centreon

Compared 7% of the time

LibreNMS vs Centreon

Compared 2% of the time

More Centreon Competitors

Zabbix vs Checkmk

Compared 14% of the time

PRTG Network Monitor vs Checkmk

Compared 6% of the time

Icinga vs Checkmk

Compared 5% of the time

LibreNMS vs Checkmk

Compared 5% of the time

SolarWinds NPM vs Checkmk

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmk Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Centreon

May 2026

Download Centreon product report

Buyer's Guide

Checkmk

May 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

April 2026

Free Report: Centreon vs. Checkmk

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

893,311 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.