We performed a comparison between Centreon and SCOM 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."
"Valuable features include the ability to schedule downtime, intensity or depth of monitoring which it does, different plugin packs, Centreon MAP, Centreon BI."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring of servers and networks, because we have a lot of them and need to maintain control."
"Centreon helps me detect where the problem is quickly. When we resolve a problem quickly, this lowers our overall costs."
"We have the business activity monitoring, the map, and the MBI modules and they are all very good."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to build an abstraction of service visualization. You can add services to an entity called Business Activities and you can see the state of these activities."
"The product is available in ISO image format, ready for deployment. Centreon also has a comprehensive guide and documentation that are simple and easy to follow."
"We have a single GUI where we can view the status of all our infrastructure."
"The most valuable features for us are the monitoring, the health explorer, and the console."
"The advantages of SCOM are that it is definitely user friendly and a more appropriate solution for what we need."
"It has good graphs of what is going on within the operating system."
"This solution saves us a lot of work because it reduces the effort that is required in order to start monitoring."
"It discovers the components automatically, which is a fantastic thing. The discovery works in an automatic way, and it has a dynamic way of discovering the components, assets, and applications. It doesn't require any manual intervention."
"The solution is scalable. If you want to monitor more you have to buy more licenses, but you can add on. We don't plan to increase usage."
"The stability has been great."
"The solution has improved our overrides and the ability to start services if they're stopped."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"Improvements I would like to see include a discovery solution, better reports, and end-to-end monitoring."
"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 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."
"I would like to see a better UI, one which is more responsive."
"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 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."
"Improvements are needed in the area of cloud monitoring, as that's a newer feature."
"It is necessary to improve service monitoring of database services in the free version."
"On-prem network monitoring is something that could be improved drastically."
"SCOM's feature that notifies us when a server is down is not present in recent updates, which has weakened the product."
"I would like to see more standard libraries for the market solutions, out of the box, that you don't need to do a lot of work on."
"The end-user components, including the dashboards, the administration console, and the web console, need to be improved."
"It would be a much better product if Microsoft provided management packs with the product."
"The solution should have more tools for monitoring the cloud engine versus on-premise."
"Application monitoring must be improved."
"The interface is a little bit cumbersome and certain actions could be simplified."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
Centreon is ranked 11th in Network Monitoring Software with 27 reviews while SCOM is ranked 10th in Network Monitoring Software with 78 reviews. Centreon is rated 8.6, while SCOM is rated 7.8. 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 SCOM writes "Has a good reporting engine, but its monitoring of the cloud-based environment could be improved". Centreon is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios Core, Icinga and WhatsUp Gold, whereas SCOM is most compared with Dynatrace, Zabbix, Datadog, Nagios XI and AppDynamics. See our Centreon vs. SCOM report.
See our list of best Network 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.
