We compared Auvik and Centreon across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Features: Auvik excels in SNMP and WMI communication, syslog centralization, and live topology mapping. The solution offers NetFlow monitoring as well as backup and configuration management. Centreon features a user-friendly interface with useful options for customization and manual configuration. Users like the solution’s flexible dashboards and the ability to create plugins.
Room for Improvement: Auvik users would like more flexibility to customize reporting and dashboards. Reviews also suggested improvements in probe deployment and integration with third-party products. Some Centreon users requested better documentation and more flexibility to customize reporting. Other areas for improvement include auto-scanning efficiency and integration.
Service and Support: Auvik's customer service is highly rated. Users said it’s convenient to contact support through the platform, and responses are fast. Some noted that problems are typically resolved in a single phone call without the need to escalate. Centreon is highly regarded for its prompt and knowledgeable customer service that offers support in multiple languages. However, some customers feel that the lower levels of support are inadequate.
Ease of Deployment: Auvik's setup is simple, fast, and customizable, with clear instructions. Centreon's initial setup is described as time-consuming and complex. The deployment varies in duration depending on the IT infrastructure.
Pricing: Auvik’s pricing structure is considered reasonable and competitive. Licensing is based on the number of billable devices, and users have control over which devices are billed. Centreon's cost depends on the company's size. It is affordable and suitable for small companies, but it can be costly to scale up.
ROI: Auvik users said the solution saves time, improves efficiency, and reduces costs through automation and better insights. Centreon delivers value by helping users identify and resolve critical issues fasters, which could yield large savings.
Comparison Results: Auvik is a user-friendly option for network monitoring and troubleshooting. The solution stands out for its support and ease of navigation. Users like its topology maps and centralized log information. Some users noted that Auvik’s dashboard could be more customizable and suggested that it could improve probe deployment. Centreon is a flexible solution offering a range of customization options. The solution has earned high marks for support and affordability. At the same time, users say the setup can be complicated and time-consuming. Others said that auto-scanning and integration have room for improvement.
"We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"Remote accessibility of the network devices is the most valuable feature. I often have to log into switches and routers to make changes, and I can do so from any computer as long as I have an Internet connection. I don't need to have my laptop or a VPN. Auvik is faster."
"The most valuable feature of Auvik is its ability to drill down and identify unusual activity on the network, such as unauthorized devices connecting to our Wi-Fi."
"The most valuable feature is device discovery through SNMP."
"The monitoring and management functions of Auvik are as easy as they can be for the functions they do. It's definitely the easiest product I've ever used."
"The quick alerts in the event the equipment goes up or down is the most valuable feature."
"Topography mapping is incredibly useful, especially when it's functioning properly."
"The most valuable feature in Auvik is that it lets us know when a network is down. It lets us know right away and we can find out what's causing it: whether it's the firewall, an AP, or there's a whole network outage. It makes things easier by giving us an "eye in the sky" when we're not on the site. It's great for monitoring."
"The first feature that I appreciate is the topology drawing in real time. If our NOC wants to troubleshoot, they can go to the topology map and see that this access point is connected to that switch via that specific port. And when something changes in the topology, it's dynamically updated."
"For servers and for applications, it was very, very efficient."
"Another feature we use is Business Activity, which provides us with an end-user perspective when a service is down or isn't working correctly. This is helpful when monitoring the KPIs. When we see a device or server that isn't working, we find the root cause."
"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."
"Valuable features include the ability to schedule downtime, intensity or depth of monitoring which it does, different plugin packs, Centreon MAP, Centreon BI."
"I can't point to one valuable feature. All of Centreon is good."
"Centreon helps me detect where the problem is quickly. When we resolve a problem quickly, this lowers our overall costs."
"Centreon's most valuable feature is Opsgenie."
"We use the remote server functionality on some customer sites, because you can see an independent view and are not dependent on a single connection. If you have branch offices or bigger office outside your headquarters, you can use remote servers because if the connection is broken or disrupted, then remote server will obtain a view of your environment and server availability. This is a good point against using other solutions. Because with other solutions, you don't have this feature. Then, you will be blind if you have this type of a situation."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"Ideally, we'd like Auvik to integrate with Autotask and allow us to set service levels within Auvik e.g., Monitor, Manage, Protect."
"Integrating some LLM/AI capabilities into the product that would enable us to use natural language to query the tool and get sensible answers back would be great."
"I requested that Auvik implement an alarm system to notify me immediately of any disruptions or anomalies."
"Auvik mostly supports large vendors such as the Cisco Aruba networks, Meraki, and Extreme Networks."
"The automation side needs improvement... A really important one was about a SonicWall firewall that needs to be rebooted every single month. You can do that in the SonicWall GUI, but you can't do it in Auvik. Hundreds of people have endorsed the idea of having an automated command line interface command run on any device that supports it."
"A room for improvement would be integration with our help desk system."
"The window view could be improved. For instance, if I'm in inventory and I'm looking at my devices, I don't like the way the window splits at the bottom. I want to be able to choose the way it appears. Similarly, when it shows me all the devices on my network, I don't like the fact that I can't adjust the display to the way I want it."
"The search could be slightly more intelligent. If I type in "Dell" and put an extra "L," Auvik doesn't give a suggestion, "Did you mean 'Dell?'" I have to fix that."
"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."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the area of artificial intelligence. The product gives us a lot of information, but it's only information. We want the product to do more auto-remediation."
"It is necessary to improve service monitoring of database services in the free version."
"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."
"Improvements I would like to see include a discovery solution, better reports, and end-to-end monitoring."
"I would like to see a better UI, one which is more responsive."
"During the initial setup we faced some issues. Part of it was because we had to become more knowledgeable in the solution. There are some gray areas and if you don't know the product well you may have issues. Another part of it was some bugs that we came across, although that's part of every software solution in IT nowadays. But the initial setup could be easier."
More Auvik Network Management (ANM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Auvik Network Management (ANM) is ranked 3rd in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 139 reviews while Centreon is ranked 11th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 27 reviews. Auvik Network Management (ANM) is rated 8.8, while Centreon is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Auvik Network Management (ANM) writes "Enables us to get on top of issues before they become an outage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Centreon writes "Proactive reporting guides our NOC on what needs to be fixed, saving them time". Auvik Network Management (ANM) is most compared with PRTG Network Monitor, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Zabbix and Meraki Dashboard, whereas Centreon is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios Core, Icinga and Nagios XI. See our Auvik Network Management (ANM) vs. Centreon report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors, best Network Monitoring Software 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.