Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

N-able N-central vs NinjaOne comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 2, 2025

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

N-able N-central
Ranking in Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM)
4th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NinjaOne
Ranking in Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM)
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Network Monitoring Software (24th), Server Monitoring (6th), IT Service Management (ITSM) (8th), Remote Access (14th), Vulnerability Management (26th), Mobile Device Management (MDM) (5th), IT Alerting and Incident Management (9th), Patch Management (7th), MSP Backup (2nd), Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) category, the mindshare of N-able N-central is 7.9%, down from 12.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NinjaOne is 11.5%, down from 20.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
NinjaOne11.5%
N-able N-central7.9%
Other80.6%
Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM)
 

Featured Reviews

Dimitri V G - PeerSpot reviewer
Team Manager Fiber & Backhaul Solutions Center & South at Telenet BVBA
Maximizing operational efficiency with comprehensive monitoring and automation capabilities
There are areas in N-able N-central that could be improved. We always started it from the basic purpose of monitoring hardware, where vendors such as HP and Dell try to sell their own services which monitor and provide a dashboard, which is their logic. They want to make their own recurring revenue on that. We notice that SNMP has had a good run and still sometimes is used, but it's becoming an issue to maintain the same capabilities because HP makes it unreliable or even removes certain features that we used to be able to validate redundant array of independent disks. Our service that has been running for 15-20 years suddenly is not working anymore because HP decided in generation 10 plus and above, or generation 10 hardware in servers, storage controllers particularly, they just didn't put the SNMP OIDs anymore. We are now following that market change or business change in hardware monitoring and the future is Redfish, REST API, IPMI type of monitoring with the REST API and Redfish being most common. We have to do the effort ourselves because Enable is not really strategically going there because I assume there's not much money to make to improve that or to convince customers to start with their product. That issue could be better if they would be more prepared for that change and give us customers more tools, preconfigured, pre-available custom services for Redfish, REST API, where we just have to put a few items username, password and address and some dots and commas, but that we don't have to reinvent the wheel, which we are doing at the moment. We are using HP iLO commandlets and REST APIs for Aruba. Dell is making it very hard to monitor their hardware. If it has an iDRAC, I can manage it and monitor it, but if it's something that's less common or due to the portfolio, they have done a good job at not exposing information about health. We would just want to have a red or a green dot that indicates if this device is healthy or not healthy. Since nobody's investing in SNMP because it's a liability in security, they should invest in making a REST API and preferably also do the work on making it easy to pull or push information. That's something that the industry in general and Enable in particular could do a significant job to help us monitor.
Not Joseph Pearson - PeerSpot reviewer
Assistant Vice President, Tech Solutions at LPL Financials
Has simplified remote software delivery and script management but needs improved reporting flexibility and better Mac support
NinjaOne's best features include ease of use regarding enablement and deployment, a broad selection and ability of software enablement, and API deliveries. Using CrowdStrike, we are able to tie in NinjaOne's API to have these automatically deliver to endpoints upon addition of those devices to a group with that policy deployed to it. NinjaOne has positively impacted our organization by making delivery easier for our end users and improving the ability to create scripts, manage scripts, and check status of devices and their compliance. This easier delivery with NinjaOne gives us oversight on devices without having to be on the call or remoted in directly to a device.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution's service is good."
"The support is at a good level. So normally, we can always get to a solution when we are stuck with some monitoring problems that we encounter."
"The most valuable features of N-central are its ease of deployment and ease of use."
"I like the remote connectivity, reporting suite, and patch management module."
"N-able N-central is very scalable."
"The transition to N-able N-central was very smooth; we were confident that our migration would not affect any operations, and it was easy to migrate our clients into the new solutions."
"N-able N-central has numerous good features. The asset tracking capability is powerful, allowing you to track hardware and software on devices connected to your network. The remote control is smooth, securely enabling remote access to servers and routers. It can be integrated with ticketing systems and other tools like CrowdStrike and N-able EDR for comprehensive network monitoring and security. The automation feature is handy, allowing you to schedule tasks, respond to system triggers, and automate problem resolution, such as handling disk space issues automatically."
"The most valuable feature of N-able N-central is the many options it has."
"The policies are probably the most valuable features. They're similar in function to Microsoft group policies where we can have it monitor certain things or push out software on a schedule. I would rate the policies eight out of 10. They're robust, I could monitor most of the things that Windows Performance Monitoring keeps tabs on."
"NinjaOne helps us view the status of software patching, whether the PC is locked or unlocked."
"A significant feature of NinjaOne is its remote access capability, which is essential for my clients’ home office usage."
"The most relevant feature is the monitoring, which provides built-in tools for sending commands."
"The solution's most valuable feature is related to its remote access...I know that NinjaOne's technical support is good."
"The best feature of NinjaOne is the SLA system. Every IT person can check their performance, how long it takes to resolve an issue, and how many SLAs are breached."
"The most valuable feature we have found currently is probably patch management."
"The software's automation tools have solved critical deployment problems for small businesses."
 

Cons

"We have to do the effort ourselves because Enable is not really strategically going there because I assume there's not much money to make to improve that or to convince customers to start with their product."
"It was previously expensive and tedious to manage different licenses."
"The integration with other applications could be better."
"The industry has moved towards Redfish for out-of-band and in-band monitoring, yet N-able N-central still relies on older protocols like SNMP."
"There is room for improvement in the development of custom monitoring services."
"At this moment, we encounter stability issues with N-able N-central from time to time."
"The support from our direct team is very good, but the support from their day-to-day ongoing help desk isn't that good. They have still got some work to do on that, but they have been focusing on that a lot over the last number of years. So, it has gotten a lot better than it was."
"Involving AI in the platform could improve it further."
"The ability to not have a NinjaOne agent or multiple NinjaOne agents on a singular device is a big pain point for the device, and secondly, the macOS support is also what keeps it from being a higher score."
"Lacks sufficient integrations with other PSAs."
"The ticketing system in NinjaOne is not the best."
"The solution could improve by optimizing the internet connection being used."
"The graphical user interface could be improved."
"The inclusion of XENServer and Proxmox as virtual platforms in NinjaOne is currently missing."
"The network monitoring needs to be improved."
"I want NinjaOne to improve the reports."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing and licensing are average, almost six out of ten."
"N-able N-central is not an expensive solution."
"It roughly costs $400 a month. It provides a good value because of the number of tools that you get in the solution. I would rate it a four out of five in terms of pricing. There are no additional costs other than the standard licensing fees."
"I rate the solution’s pricing a five out of ten, where one is the lowest and ten is the most expensive."
"NinjaRMM uses a subscription model."
"Its pricing is great."
"We currently pay $1.20 per device on a monthly basis."
"We got a pretty good deal. It was fairly affordable."
"The product's pricing depends on the number of PCs or devices."
"NinjaOne is a little expensive but is still cheaper than competitors like Acronis or Veeam."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
14%
Computer Software Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Performing Arts
7%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise1
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise2
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with N-able N-central?
The MSP part of N-able N-central has evolved over the years. They have been trying to move from professional or network server and desktop licensing to make it more comprehensive. With professional...
What is your primary use case for N-able N-central?
We have been dealing with Enable EDR and N-able N-central, which is a management center. It's the NOC solution that we are currently running our asset management on. We are managing tasks in that e...
What advice do you have for others considering N-able N-central?
There's a new node for N-able N-central which they have addressed. Our outstanding items include reviewing our pricing and partnership level, which can provide additional benefits when we exceed 10...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NinjaOne?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for NinjaOne is fairly cheap and easy.
What needs improvement with NinjaOne?
One challenge I face with NinjaOne is that when remoting in, sometimes the end user has a resolution with very tiny text, making it necessary to zoom in to see what the other computer is displaying...
What is your primary use case for NinjaOne?
My main use case for NinjaOne is ticketing. I use NinjaOne for ticketing in my daily work to keep track of all the computers and their uptime, and to generate tickets if there are any alerts.
 

Also Known As

SolarWinds N-central, SolarWinds MSP N-central
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Premier Technology Solutions
Status Pros, Mitchell and Company
Find out what your peers are saying about N-able N-central vs. NinjaOne and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.