We performed a comparison between Centreon and Opsview 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."
"Centreon helps me detect where the problem is quickly. When we resolve a problem quickly, this lowers our overall costs."
"Valuable features include the ability to schedule downtime, intensity or depth of monitoring which it does, different plugin packs, Centreon MAP, Centreon BI."
"Centreon's most valuable features are preventative maintenance and cost-efficiency. Everything is monitored, and we get a log before the system fails. We have an opportunity to fix the issue and avoid downtime."
"For servers and for applications, it was very, very efficient."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring of servers and networks, because we have a lot of them and need to maintain control."
"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."
"What was very compelling about OpsView was that we could dial out the noise and have meaningful and actionable alerts."
"We use this solution for internal monitoring our own cloud platform because we are a public cloud provider. We also use it for monitoring purposes on behalf of our clients."
"It's a good solution. It covers all aspects of monitoring purposes."
"I am satisfied with the overall product since it works well…It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Opsview is the ability to clone the services when you're monitoring something out of the test setup."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"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."
"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 would like to see a better UI, one which is more responsive."
"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."
"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."
"Improvements are needed in the area of cloud monitoring, as that's a newer feature."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"Sometimes, when the GUI and some of the search fields are being reset, and I return to the page, then I have to set them again. Therefore, some improvement on the UI and the filtering is needed."
"Some of the graphics on Opsview could be improved."
"Pricing and a few certain aspects in the solution needs to be improved."
"Customized reporting can be improved."
"Maybe the graphical representation can be improved. It can be enhanced for better visualization. It could be a little better. And the graph center can be improved."
"In a future release, we would like to have Observ for AI. Any AI and intelligence it can add to the monitoring is obviously beneficial. We would also like to have automated callouts."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
Centreon is ranked 11th in Network Monitoring Software with 27 reviews while Opsview is ranked 32nd in Network Monitoring Software with 24 reviews. Centreon is rated 8.6, while Opsview is rated 8.6. 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 Opsview writes "Responsive and easy to customize alerts for, while being priced similarly to its competition". Centreon is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios Core, Icinga and Datadog, whereas Opsview is most compared with OP5 Monitor, Zabbix, Nagios XI, Instana Infrastructure Monitoring and SCOM. See our Centreon vs. Opsview 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.