We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and ITRS Geneos based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Azure Monitor is a cost-effective and easy-to-use solution that integrates well with other Microsoft technologies. It is highly recommended due to its lower cost, ease of configuration and maintenance, and integration capabilities. On the other hand, while ITRS Geneos is highly customizable and flexible, it lacks thread-level monitoring and requires a complex initial setup that may require direct onsite support for several weeks. It may also be too expensive for non-banking and non-finance industries. Azure Monitor is a more affordable and user-friendly option for developers who want to integrate with Visual Studio and monitor cloud resources across multiple subscriptions, making it the preferred solution.
"In the last company where I worked about a year ago, it looked very simple."
"Azure Monitor is a very easy-to-use product in the cloud environment."
"Data exporting is easy, and this tool works seamlessly with other solutions. It's a stable and low-priced solution."
"It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale."
"It's a Microsoft native tool, so it works well with other Microsoft technologies, which is predominantly what our customer end-user base is."
"Azure Monitor is very stable."
"It has good troubleshooting features."
"The solution's most valuable features are its ability to focus on delivery and maximizing the performance of applications and services."
"Geneos automatically sends email notifications when any batch job fails, the database is down or the website is down. It is automatically monitoring everything and reduces manual effort."
"I always appreciate Geneos's stability and ease of use."
"The great advantage of this tool is real-time monitoring."
"Custom script toolkits"
"The Netprobe is so lightweight compared to the agents that most monitoring tools use. It's really superior to the competition. The agent that is used by almost every competitive tool takes a lot more system resources. It's slower and it requires a greater effort and more compromises in terms of security to install on the monitored servers. With Geneos, because it lives outside the code, it is far easier and far less taxing on the monitored systems."
"Ability to monitor logs for potential issues to prevent app outages before problems get a chance to arise. That's invaluable for our teams in a fast-paced trading environment."
"ITRS can define rules to alert when certain parameters that you monitor breach a threshold. Rules can be configured to fire recovery actions automatically to clear the alert"
"Real-time log monitoring with desktop alerts is valuable as it tells us immediately when there is an issue."
"In my opinion, they should improve the overall user experience, especially when it comes to indexing and searching collective logs."
"Lacks information including details related to where problems lie."
"Azure Monitor's integration with applications could be improved."
"They should include advanced logging on the database level in the Azure pool."
"This solution has fewer features than some of its competitors, so adding more features to it would make it better."
"n comparison to New Relic, which I've used before, it's a bit more complicated. It's not as easy to use. It also took some time to get it working. The implementation needs to be simpler."
"The solution's monitoring feature has limitations for analyzing multiple metrics."
"When something goes down, we want the option to have automation in place to get it back up again as quickly as possible."
"Much of the reporting outside of the user interface is very basic and requires much customization to be useful."
"One thing that could be improved in terms of rapid scaling would be more ability to clone aspects of an implementation. It seems like there are opportunities in this area, where we have repetitive tasks to do when it comes to implementing things on new servers or on new gateways. It would be great if there was an easy way to clone something that had already been done."
"I would also like to see suggested guidelines to accomplish a monitoring task. The issue is that ITRS is so flexible that there is more than one way to complete a task, each with benefits and disadvantages."
"One area where there is room for improvement is the log file. I would like to be able to do a pre-run on the log files. When you are testing log files for regular expressions, it would be good to be able to do a quick check up front on that side of things before you release that into production."
"The ITA, the post-incident analytics, could be improved."
"A lightweight version which could host more than 100 gateways, as we can see slowness while loading all our gateways."
"Mobile phone integration is probably not as rich as it could be."
"Sometimes, if there is a lot of data coming onto the servers, we have observed a little bit of slowness on the gateway servers which are doing the ITRS dashboard monitoring."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while ITRS Geneos is ranked 11th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 57 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while ITRS Geneos is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "A powerful Kusto query language but the alerting mechanism needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ITRS Geneos writes "The flexible dashboard sets it apart from competing tools, but it's costly and lacks scalability". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Grafana, whereas ITRS Geneos is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Grafana, Prometheus and Datadog. See our Azure Monitor vs. ITRS Geneos report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors.
We monitor all Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability 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.