We performed a comparison between Centreon and Elastic Observability 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 the monitoring of servers and networks, because we have a lot of them and need to maintain control."
"The most important feature is that it permits us to receive alarms if there is an incident within the infrastructure. The feature I love the most is the reporting feature, the MBI (Monitoring Business Intelligence) which permits us to send advanced reports to our customers in PDF format or in Doc format. We also deploy Centreon Map which gives our customers intuitive views of their information system."
"We have a single GUI where we can view the status of all our infrastructure."
"Centreon helps me detect where the problem is quickly. When we resolve a problem quickly, this lowers our overall costs."
"E-mail alert notifications are valuable."
"We are alerted on service impacts and not when something is down. We have saved a lot of time on non-business-hours intervention."
"I can't point to one valuable feature. All of Centreon is good."
"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."
"Machine learning is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"It is a powerful tool that allows users to collect and transform logs as needed, enabling flexible visualization and analysis."
"The price is very less expensive compared to the other solutions."
"It has always been a stable solution."
"I have built a mini business intelligence system based on Elastic Observability."
"Its diverse set of features available on the cloud is of significant importance."
"The architecture and system's stability are simple."
"The ability to ensure that the data is searchable and maintainable is highly valuable for our purposes."
"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 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."
"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."
"This solution lacks service monitoring in the cloud."
"Improvements are needed in the area of cloud monitoring, as that's a newer feature."
"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."
"It is necessary to improve service monitoring of database services in the free version."
"I would like them to improve their documentation. When I faced some issues, I was looking for more documentation on the Internet. There is official documentation on Centreon's website, which sometimes is useful. Sometimes it is not very useful, as you cannot find the information or enough examples of configuration. The answer for me was to contact the support, who helped me, but I was not able to find all the information by myself on Centreon's website. A Centreon community or blog would be helpful."
"Improving code insight related to infrastructure and network, particularly focusing on aspects such as firewalls, switches, routers, and testing would be beneficial."
"The interface could be improved."
"The cost must be made more transparent."
"The price is the only issue in the solution. It can be made better and cheaper."
"Elastic Observability is difficult to use. There are only three options for customization but this can be difficult for our use case. We do not have other options to choose the metrics shown, such as CPU or memory usage."
"There is room for improvement regarding its APM capabilities."
"Elastic Observability needs to have better standardization, logging, and schema."
"Elastic APM's visualization is not that great compared to other tools. It's number of metrics is very low."
Centreon is ranked 11th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 27 reviews while Elastic Observability is ranked 10th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 22 reviews. Centreon is rated 8.6, while Elastic Observability 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 Elastic Observability writes "The user interface framework lets us do custom development when needed. ". Centreon is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios Core, Icinga and WhatsUp Gold, whereas Elastic Observability is most compared with Dynatrace, New Relic, Azure Monitor, Sentry and AppDynamics. See our Centreon vs. Elastic Observability report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors and best Cloud Monitoring Software 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.
