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."For servers and for applications, it was very, very efficient."
"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 all our tickets inside Centreon in real-time and can monitor a lot of ELP and CLN in real-time for application purposes."
"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."
"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."
"It is decentralized, which is better, because you can reduce the load from a single system. Also, you get a better view because it's more independent. Then, for the management, it's nice because they have one central system. With that, they can manage all the other systems, as well. This means they don't have to configure each system by system. They can configure it from one single interface."
"Predetermined templates allow for simple and fast service monitoring configuration."
"I can't point to one valuable feature. All of Centreon is good."
"We use AppDynamics and Elastic. The reason why we're using Elastic APM is because of the license count. It's very favorable compared to AppDynamics. It's inexpensive; it's economical."
"The solution has been stable in our usage."
"The product has connectors to many services."
"The architecture and system's stability are simple."
"Machine learning is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"It has always been a stable solution."
"Its diverse set of features available on the cloud is of significant importance."
"The price is very less expensive compared to the other solutions."
"The problem with the reporting is you have to configure the report, and after that, you will have the same report every month, every week, every day. You have to sync it in order to have a great report."
"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."
"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."
"Centreon is actually missing an easy way to create a trendline for the metrics. Actually it is possible to create it, but you need a good knowledge of math, Centreon, and RRD."
"Release management and quality of testing need improvement, because with each major upgrade we have many issues coming in. Then, it takes several minor upgrades to get rid of them."
"Currently, we have to go through all of the different templates and take a look at how the template is configured, and how specific parameters may change across different templates with different precedents, megatons, etc. It's a lot of work and involves trial and error. I wish they could simplify the process."
"I think Centreon's security could be improved by leveraging AI. That's where things are heading in the industry."
"There's a steep learning curve if you've never used this solution before."
"More web features could be added to the product."
"The interface could be improved."
"In the future, Elastic APM needs a portfolio iTool. They can provide an easy way to develop the custom UI for Kibana."
"There is room for improvement regarding its APM capabilities."
"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."
"Elastic Observability is reactive rather than proactive. It should act as an ITSM tool and be able to create tickets and alerts on Jira."
"Elastic Observability needs to improve the retrieval of logs and metrics from all the instances."
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 ManageEngine OpManager, whereas Elastic Observability is most compared with Dynatrace, New Relic, AppDynamics, Azure Monitor and Sentry. 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.
