We previously used SolarWinds Network Performance Monitor. When we compared the two solutions, we found that Centreon had stronger reporting features and a customizable dashboard. Centreon was also more affordable. SolarWinds' network discovery feature is better, but I think Centreon can improve this aspect. 

I was using Splunk at my previous company. Splunk is much more expensive, but it has some capabilities in terms of getting logs. On Centreon, you only get SNMP metrics. However, if you want to get syslogs with a monitoring solution, you can use Splunk, a regexp query, and a specific SQL query to construct a proper output. For this, Centreon is not helpful, but Splunk is.

Previously, we used Nagios, which is the general base of Centreon. Nagios is a monitoring solution that is open source. It was one of the first monitoring tools available to the public. In the past, Centreon was just a critical interface for creating the configuration of Nagios. This changed in the last couple of years, so Centreon is now a completely self-standing product.

We used to use Nagios. The switch to Centreon was not my personal choice, but it was done because we needed access to abstractions, and that is something Nagios cannot do. Nagios doesn't have the same features. You cannot represent things on dashboards like in Centreon.

Personally, I don't have a preference for one over the other. Management made the final choice, but in my opinion, it was for the cosmetic aspects of the product.

Our organization previously used Zabbix before switching to Centreon.

We did not have a previous solution. Centreon solved one of the biggest issues that we had. We have a lot of pollers for the metering. In the past, we had to log into each of them to see the status, which was really a pain because did not have a central metering before.

We had a solution in place previously that didn't have a single-pane view. It's hard to quantify, but having Centreon certainly makes it much more efficient, as you're able to go in and see the status of all your customers in one place immediately, in real-time, rather than having to log into a separate portal.

One of the things that we did previously was to develop plugins and tools in-house. This was something that was time-consuming and is no longer necessary. We switched because we didn't have to spend time on training, and it allowed us to focus more on our core mission.

We used the regular Nagios, two or three of them for each of our data centers. I wasn't there at the time the switch was made to Centreon, but I can guess that it was because Centreon is a unified solution. You can now configure checks and do it on one page. With Nagios, at least the old one, you had to have a different site for each data center, so you had to manage three or four things.

At my last company, I used Nagios XI.

We brought on Centreon because we didn't have a monitoring solution.

We switched to Centreon from our previous solution because of the flexibility it offered as an open source solution and because it allowed us to have more control over the design of our monitoring environment.

We primarily switched to Centreon because of compatibility, cost, difficulty in finding expertise, and support with our previous solution. 

Centreon has been more flexible with customers' requests. We also saw at the same that Centreon would be able to grow with customer needs, not investor needs. They have developed their technology to solve customers' problems in the last two years, doing an excellent job with reporting and predictive analysis.

We had a previous solution. We switched because we are trying to save some money and, at the same time, looking for a solution that will support our business needs. This solution was suggested by upper management.

We used to use Nagios. I also used the IBM Tivoli solution, OpenView from HPE, and WhatsUp Gold. I have used many solutions.

We switched to Centreon for a number of reasons. The IBM and HPE solutions were too expensive. We then went to a free solution, Nagios. But the Nagios interface is not as complete or as good as Centreon's interface. So we switched to Centreon's free version first and moved to using the EMS solution about a year ago, to get the benefits of plugins and dashboards.

We did not previously have another solution.

We used Nagios before Centreon. I prefer Centreon because Centreon vs Nagios provides a web interface without having to spend more on a license for it. That is why we migrated from Nagios to Centreon.

We are a big company and did not have a worldwide monitoring solution before Centreon. All we had were several countries using monitoring tools which were inefficient, e.g., Zabbix in China and Thailand. 

Since I've been at Opticomm, we've always used Centreon. Prior to that, I've used a number of different management platforms. I'm a Netcool certified engineer so I've used Netcool, I've used HPE OpenView, Network Node Manager. I've used a couple of other platforms. I've obviously used Nagios. The main reason why I switched to Centreon was the graphical interface.

I haven't had any experience with other solutions and I don't even know how our company dealt with these kinds of issues prior to this solution. When I came to this company eight years ago, we took this solution with the first managed customers, so we grew with the solution and with the monitoring.

We had a different monitoring system. Why Centreon? It's very good at agents, in collecting data. Because of some specific integrations we must do, we chose Centreon. Based on demand and our expectations, and the collectors, we made our decision.

We picked Centreon because, after an open-source comparison, and given what we want to do, and our skills and experience as well, it was the best solution for us, the most reliable for our services. We manage the unified collaboration clusters for an organization in Europe. The difficulty is that we have to maintain a complex solution so I don't want to increase the complexity of managing it. The opposite would be the best way, to effectively simplify the management of this kind of cluster. Centreon is made for monitoring but also has extra connectors to enable automation. Globally, that was a very important point for us, to open the door to tomorrow. If we stay with Centreon, we should be able to play with the data, with Centreon and with other systems.

I can't really give an answer due to the fact that, when I came on board, we had already been using Centreon for quite some time and I have not really explored what was used before they started using Centreon in the organization.