No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

N-able N-central vs N-able N-sight Remote Monitoring & Management comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 2, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

N-able N-central
Ranking in Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM)
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
N-able N-sight Remote Monit...
Ranking in Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM)
8th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) category, the mindshare of N-able N-central is 5.3%, down from 8.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of N-able N-sight Remote Monitoring & Management is 4.8%, up from 4.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
N-able N-central5.3%
N-able N-sight Remote Monitoring & Management4.8%
Other89.9%
Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM)
 

Featured Reviews

Dimitri V G - PeerSpot reviewer
Team Manager Fiber & Backhaul Solutions Center & South at Telenet BVBA
Maximizing operational efficiency with comprehensive monitoring and automation capabilities
There are areas in N-able N-central that could be improved. We always started it from the basic purpose of monitoring hardware, where vendors such as HP and Dell try to sell their own services which monitor and provide a dashboard, which is their logic. They want to make their own recurring revenue on that. We notice that SNMP has had a good run and still sometimes is used, but it's becoming an issue to maintain the same capabilities because HP makes it unreliable or even removes certain features that we used to be able to validate redundant array of independent disks. Our service that has been running for 15-20 years suddenly is not working anymore because HP decided in generation 10 plus and above, or generation 10 hardware in servers, storage controllers particularly, they just didn't put the SNMP OIDs anymore. We are now following that market change or business change in hardware monitoring and the future is Redfish, REST API, IPMI type of monitoring with the REST API and Redfish being most common. We have to do the effort ourselves because Enable is not really strategically going there because I assume there's not much money to make to improve that or to convince customers to start with their product. That issue could be better if they would be more prepared for that change and give us customers more tools, preconfigured, pre-available custom services for Redfish, REST API, where we just have to put a few items username, password and address and some dots and commas, but that we don't have to reinvent the wheel, which we are doing at the moment. We are using HP iLO commandlets and REST APIs for Aruba. Dell is making it very hard to monitor their hardware. If it has an iDRAC, I can manage it and monitor it, but if it's something that's less common or due to the portfolio, they have done a good job at not exposing information about health. We would just want to have a red or a green dot that indicates if this device is healthy or not healthy. Since nobody's investing in SNMP because it's a liability in security, they should invest in making a REST API and preferably also do the work on making it easy to pull or push information. That's something that the industry in general and Enable in particular could do a significant job to help us monitor.
Daniel Gombe - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Executive Officer at SOIT Business Solutions
Remote management and incident handling have improved with customizable alerts and efficient patch management
The best feature in N-able N-sight Remote Monitoring & Management is the ease of use because I can remote into any machine that's under management without having to drive out to the customer all the time. It helps to reduce workflows because I can create scripts that I can automate, so I don't have to have many people working for me. It helps to reduce incident response times because it's a combination of tools that logs incidents to the PSA, creates tickets, and allows us to manage incidents all in one for an MSP. It does improve service delivery because we can see what's wrong with certain devices before even the customer has a problem, allowing us to remedy it with the necessary tools.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"N-able N-central is an easy tool to implement with customers."
"It's a very robust product. They're continuing to invest and put new enhancements into the product. They're very open about what their roadmap is, which is very good for us because then as a business, we can plan."
"I like the remote connectivity, reporting suite, and patch management module."
"The support is at a good level. So normally, we can always get to a solution when we are stuck with some monitoring problems that we encounter."
"The transition to N-able N-central was very smooth; we were confident that our migration would not affect any operations, and it was easy to migrate our clients into the new solutions."
"N-able N-central is very scalable."
"The most helpful features of N-able N-central include providing a single pane of glass for many insights in an environment regarding their patching, their assets, their devices in general, and the active issues that they show."
"The most valuable features of N-central are its ease of deployment and ease of use."
"The integrated backup and the scripting are good, and we use them the most."
"If you want to understand what is happening on your network, this is a good tool."
"It is a pretty good all-around solution, especially for a small business like us who need to look after a limited number of clients."
"The most valuable aspect of N-able Remote Monitoring & Management is it provides an all-in solution for the different solutions."
"This is a great solution for a business at the start of their ICT maturity."
"We are getting value for the money in that regard."
"The network device is a good feature. In a place where you need to monitor your firewall switches, you can add an RMM tool and monitor it on the same screen on the same setup for the same client. Network devices are very good."
"The solution provides an administration panel where we can see what is happening on our client's stations, such as events, alerts, and all the software installed."
 

Cons

"The support from our direct team is very good, but the support from their day-to-day ongoing help desk isn't that good. They have still got some work to do on that, but they have been focusing on that a lot over the last number of years. So, it has gotten a lot better than it was."
"We have to do the effort ourselves because Enable is not really strategically going there because I assume there's not much money to make to improve that or to convince customers to start with their product."
"The integration with other applications could be better."
"N-central has limited mobile device management (MDM) support, specifically for Android devices. This limitation affected a deal with a client who had numerous Android devices to manage. It would be beneficial if N-central could expand its MDM support to include Android devices."
"There is room for improvement in the development of custom monitoring services."
"N-able N-central could improve the remote access, my technicians have complained about it. They have used other free tools instead to compensate, such as TeamViewer. Additionally, when using remote access on the web, it is lacking reports."
"Involving AI in the platform could improve it further."
"It was previously expensive and tedious to manage different licenses."
"The solutions could improve by adding more features."
"The SentinelOne integration is not great and can definitely be improved."
"After testing, we decided not to proceed with this product. It is very good and has many features, but the cost is very expensive so it is beyond our budget."
"It would be great if the pricing model could be improved and the solution was more affordable."
"The patch management of the solution could improve."
"The alerts and reporting could be done a little more clearly. They are quite cryptic, and quite often, we seem to get a lot of reports just for a computer rebooting or going offline for a couple of minutes, which doesn't seem like it's that big of a deal. Reporting could be refined and improved, and they can make it easy to decipher the reports."
"There is quite a bit of delay on the portal where we receive monitoring information from the endpoint agent on the remote device. Sometimes it gets stuck with no live response from the device, and you have to refresh the portal just to make sure that it's projecting the right information."
"Kaseya is a similar product and they have easier scripts. If you want to deploy one software to 100 machines, we need to dig into it and then we need to create the script and work with the support team and then we can deploy that particular script. The pre-built scripted is the one thing that I would definitely like to have improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"N-able N-central is not an expensive solution."
"The pricing and licensing are average, almost six out of ten."
"The solution is not very expensive."
"We use SolarWinds RMM on a pay-as-you-go monthly basis, so the cost can be highly variable because it depends on a few factors such as how many devices you need to support and what extra features you want to use. The more devices you have, the more you'll pay, and the same goes for extras."
"I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to that since I set it up. It has per-user licensing. If I remember it correctly, it worked out to about $10 a month per user. There were no additional costs. It was pretty straightforward and simple."
"The product is fairly priced."
"As I'm not part of the procurement team and because I'm 100% technical, I'm not that familiar with the costs associated with N-able N-sight Remote Monitoring & Management, but I can say that in my location, particularly here in Sri Lanka, it's more expensive than other RMM solutions. I'm working for an Australian IT MSP, and over there, the solution isn't as expensive, but where I'm located, it is, so this is the reason why sometimes, clients don't go with N-able N-sight Remote Monitoring & Management. Licensing cost is also the reason why my organization is looking into Kaseya RMM. My current organization merged with another organization that's using both Kaseya RMM and Connectwise."
"It's expensive and out of our budget."
"There is a license required for this solution."
"Out clients pay monthly for the license of N-able Remote Monitoring & Management."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) solutions are best for your needs.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
14%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
18%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Construction Company
9%
Performing Arts
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise1
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise1
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with N-able N-central?
The MSP part of N-able N-central has evolved over the years. They have been trying to move from professional or network server and desktop licensing to make it more comprehensive. With professional...
What is your primary use case for N-able N-central?
We have been dealing with Enable EDR and N-able N-central, which is a management center. It's the NOC solution that we are currently running our asset management on. We are managing tasks in that e...
What advice do you have for others considering N-able N-central?
There's a new node for N-able N-central which they have addressed. Our outstanding items include reviewing our pricing and partnership level, which can provide additional benefits when we exceed 10...
What is your primary use case for N-able Remote Monitoring & Management?
The typical use case for my clients is that there is no atypical case. I use N-able N-sight Remote Monitoring & Management to have a warning about the state of endpoint and server and also to p...
What needs improvement with N-able Remote Monitoring & Management?
There is room for improvement in the functional aspects of N-able N-sight Remote Monitoring & Management. For example, it should evaluate the penetration of assets and enhance asset management ...
What advice do you have for others considering N-able Remote Monitoring & Management?
My relationship with N-able is as an end-user; I work as an MSP and use this solution to manage my customer endpoints. Regarding the pricing of this tool, I don't have any suggestions. I think the ...
 

Also Known As

SolarWinds N-central, SolarWinds MSP N-central
N-able Remote Monitoring & Management, SolarWinds MSP Remote Monitoring & Management, MSP RMM, SolarWinds RMM, SolarWinds Remote Monitoring and Management
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Premier Technology Solutions
NetSys Network Systems
Find out what your peers are saying about N-able N-central vs. N-able N-sight Remote Monitoring & Management and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.