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."
"The single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"Auvik has a dynamic mapping feature. Once you get things loaded, it will show you how everything is connected. It also shows the alerts on that map, making it a very quick and human-readable way to dig into it. Overall, that visualization is really nice, especially the dynamic facet."
"Auvik's cloud SaaS model saves money because we don't need to maintain devices or pay for overhead on our end."
"In the past, I would manually input the credentials and IP address of a single device from my machine and access the device, which took a lot of time. A task that previously took 40-45 minutes can be completed in less than five minutes with Auvik. It reduces the time needed to check a device for a single company, so we can act quickly before a disaster happens."
"The solution provides detailed device information, including serial numbers, configurations, IP, warranty status, and when the device was purchased. This is very helpful when it comes to replacing old devices."
"It's all intuitive and straightforward. The out-of-the-box alerts provided everything I needed, but I've made a couple of additional alerts. You can schedule maintenance windows in Auvik, and the solution won't send any alerts during that time."
"I really like the network map. It's probably the most useful feature because we have monitoring set up in other systems too, but seeing what's connected to what and where it is makes a lot of things a lot easier to troubleshoot."
"Monitoring is probably the most active thing Auvik does for us. If a particular device on the network goes down, we have that granularity to see which network element is causing the problem."
"The integration with other vendors, not just using their SNMP feature, but the actual integration to other cloud-based solutions is also valuable. We use Cisco Meraki, and integration into that has been very helpful."
"The downtimes feature is helpful. If the ISP is doing some maintenance on its network, we have the option to put downtime on the devices or the services, so we won't get any false alarms."
"We have a single GUI where we can view the status of all our infrastructure."
"I can't point to one valuable feature. All of Centreon is good."
"For servers and for applications, it was very, very efficient."
"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 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."
"Centreon's most valuable feature is Opsgenie."
"I really like the filtering capabilities of it. You can easily tell what's critical next to what's okay, the state of the services. It's very easy to get the whole picture quickly."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"Price sensitivity is an issue in the country where we use Auvik because of our exchange rate. It would be helpful if they could offer a slightly more affordable price in this region. I'd also like to see Auvik introduce more AI-driven features."
"Navigating around the map on more complex networks is pretty painful if you're showing endpoints. I know there are filters to knock it down, but sometimes that's not enough. It handles like 'early-90s Java.'"
"I don't know if it has integrations with ticketing systems so that alerts would get to the ticketing system right away. That would be a good feature to add."
"The network mapping is just okay when I consider what I would typically see in a network map... that whole overview map in a single pane of glass can be pretty messy and a little bit of a performance hog on computers. The network mapping needs improvement in Auvik, as a whole."
"Network setups take time regardless of the tool you use. It will always take time to build. I wish you could order Auvik to rescan the network on demand when I make changes. Sometimes, I want the network to scan immediately instead of waiting for it to detect the changes."
"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 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."
"The deployment could be better. It's something that we've done recently. Auvik uses something called a collector, and I added a collector to our main site. I only added it to the main site, but when it came to adding additional sites because this was in the testing phase, I had to reconfigure that collector. It wasn't overly clear about how to do that and how to share. They call it sharing a collector. I had to mess around a bit to reconfigure that collector and add some new sites."
"Improvements are needed in the area of cloud monitoring, as that's a newer feature."
"I think Centreon's security could be improved by leveraging AI. That's where things are heading in the industry."
"This solution lacks service monitoring in the cloud."
"There are improvements that they need to make to their API. When we're using different systems and we want to disable monitoring for a specific server, we still can't do that through the API. That's something that's lacking."
"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 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."
"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."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
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.