We performed a comparison between Centreon and HPE OneView 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."The most valuable feature is that we can manually configure everything we need. After it comes inside the interface of Centreon, you can display it. Because the interface is quite user-friendly, you can manually configure the configuration very deeply, which is very pleasant and useful because you can monitor and see everything on your service list, dashboard, or MAP. The most useful feature for me is that you can create your own plugin and monitoring query."
"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."
"In addition, the flexibility, customizability, and analytics of Centreon's dashboards are all very good. The dashboards help us see the whole network map, and that is quite valuable for us. In addition, the dashboards have helped to improve our visibility and ability to proactively ensure the right data is available at the right time... The flexibility has given us the ability to add in our own monitoring metrics and that has been quite interesting and very useful for us."
"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."
"I find the product's scalability to be one of the most valuable features since it allows us to add unlimited devices for monitoring and to set up additional polling servers without additional license cost or downtime in our monitoring."
"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."
"Centreon's most valuable feature is Opsgenie."
"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."
"It monitors all our servers, and if there is any problem it straight away sends us an alert. If It's a faulty component, we can see it from there. It sends an alert."
"Gives us one platform to monitor and access or configure all the servers or the 3PAR, etc."
"OneView provides a single console, which is manageable without physical access."
"Easy to see if all my servers are on correct firmware levels, with SPP packaging."
"The most valuable features are the composable structure, infrastructure, and automation."
"We could literally swap out a piece of hardware, slide one back into the chassis, and immediately - about three reboots later - it was identical. We didn't have to worry about configuring it, we didn't have to spend any time getting anything into place. It came back and it healed the environment almost immediately."
"The template management makes the deployment of the firmware updates much faster."
"The remote support automatically logs service calls and support cases with HPE, which is really good."
"Improvements I would like to see include a discovery solution, better reports, and end-to-end monitoring."
"Centreon technical support is only available during Central European business hours. When it comes to critical business solutions, there should be a 24/7 hotline that customers can rely on."
"Centreon supports officially 10,000 services per poller. That is not much for larger customers, because this limit is reached very quickly. We use it with three times the limit without any problems, but Centreon says, "Okay, we are only supporting it with 10,000 services." We are aware that increasing the limit has different impacts because they need to support it. However, for most customers, it would be be very good if they could increase the limit of services."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Specifically, it would be great if we had the ability to reapply the server profile faster."
"We ran into a couple of issues here and there with the baselines for the firmware and not having enough space on the appliance itself to be able to have more than two baselines."
"Those features, coming in version 4, that we're looking for are the discovery, primarily. But I think the scope-based access control is of interest, although, we didn't see any directory integration, so that, in itself, seems like it's still limited."
"The solution could add storage, integration services, and end-to-end support for Cisco switches or other competitor products."
"HPE OneView should be able to cover more device models apart from ProLiant and Synergy."
"It would be better if we can add every HPE device to OneView, such as MSA, as well as the other servers like the DL server and ML server."
"I have to chop it up into smaller parts, because I have an installation in Europe and it covers the whole world. That is not so good. They need to be more localized, so I am going to chop it up into smaller bits."
"Integration could be improved. Sometimes OneView doesn't identify physical hardware."
Centreon is ranked 11th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 27 reviews while HPE OneView is ranked 16th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 80 reviews. Centreon is rated 8.6, while HPE OneView is rated 8.0. 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 HPE OneView writes "Provides firmware compliance and the ability to connect to iPO". Centreon is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios Core, Icinga and Datadog, whereas HPE OneView is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Dell CloudIQ, Zabbix, Lenovo XClarity Orchestrator and ServiceNow IT Operations Management. See our Centreon vs. HPE OneView report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring 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.
