We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and VMware Tanzu Observability by Wavefront based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: VMware Tanzu Observability by Wavefront is favored over Azure Monitor because of its ease of deployment, integration with multiple solutions, support for container platforms like Kubernetes, and real-time visibility into complex cloud-native environments. Azure Monitor is praised for its application insights and telemetry, and low-cost pricing, but needs improvement in visualization, integration with third-party services, and out-of-the-box functionalities.
"Azure Monitor gives us the observability to check everything that we have in the cloud."
"It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale."
"The most valuable features of Azure Monitor are the login analytics workspace and we can write any kind of custom queries in order to receive the data that is inserted into the login analytics workspace, diagnostic settings, et cetera."
"Among the valuable features of this solution, Application Insights stands out as one of the most significant. It provides insights into application performance and helps identify issues and bottlenecks."
"It has good troubleshooting features."
"I use the solution to monitor the infrastructure and applications."
"It's a Microsoft native tool, so it works well with other Microsoft technologies, which is predominantly what our customer end-user base is."
"One of the most useful aspects of this solution is the out-of-the-box functionality on all areas, especially on Application Insights, zero instrumentation, and artificial intelligence for event correlation."
"The solution is great for virtualization and preparing the infrastructure in Tanzu to test products. It's very fast and has good visibility."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are its ease of use and its ease of implementation."
"This solution allows me to have true visibility for any metrics when it comes to my cloud, and private."
"The features I find most valuable is the querying and alerting capabilities."
"People are very pleased with the implementation."
"No issues with stability."
"For us, the ease of deployment in combination with TMZ was the most important part because we don't have to manually deploy a complex monitoring solution. We can more or less do that with the click of a button, and we are not dependent on the developers to provide us with all the necessary features and functions to make that work. We can just deploy it on a workload cluster and monitor at least a good part of the workload. If we want to go into detail, we clearly need to make changes, but for a good part of application monitoring, it gives us good insights."
"Tanzu itself, integrated with multiple solutions, bestows support and security upon a container platform, especially when it comes to managing open-source container platforms such as Kubernetes."
"Lacks information including details related to where problems lie."
"Although it's not always the case, the price can sometimes get expensive. This depends on a number of factors, such as how many services you are trying to integrate with Azure Monitor and how much storage they're consuming each month (for example, how large are the log files?)."
"They should include advanced logging on the database level in the Azure pool."
"If it is configured incorrectly, you can end up with a huge bill."
"They need to work on a more hybrid deployment that will allow us to monitor local on-premise deployments and connect to different systems. I would like to see more integration."
"Integration with third-party tools from other vendors than Azure is more time-consuming"
"They need to work with other cloud providers - not just Azure."
"The default interface should be improved."
"They could make it more easy to plug-in data so that a nontechnical person will be able to use it, like accountants or finance people. That way they don't have to ask us."
"The implementation is a long process that should be improved."
"The initial setup should be easier and more seamless."
"In the new version, I would love to see more prediction capabilities. It would be great if one could see the alerts get a little more enriched with information and become more human-friendly instead of the technical stuff that they put in there. I think those would be really awesome outcomes to get."
"I would like to see integration with Kubernetes cluster and APIs so that you can manage the entire stack."
"The documentation and integration with Kubernetes could be improved."
"The main problem I have is that the license cost is very high."
"It could use a URL document server. Everything in the market is moving towards automation and everybody's looking for the single click operations as well relational data locality."
More VMware Aria Operations for Applications Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 5th in Cloud Monitoring Software with 45 reviews while VMware Aria Operations for Applications is ranked 29th in Cloud Monitoring Software with 9 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while VMware Aria Operations for Applications is rated 7.6. 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 VMware Aria Operations for Applications writes "Easy to deploy, worth the money, and helpful for uptime monitoring and performance insights". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Grafana, whereas VMware Aria Operations for Applications is most compared with Grafana, Dynatrace, Zabbix, Datadog and AppDynamics. See our Azure Monitor vs. VMware Aria Operations for Applications report.
See our list of best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors and best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Monitoring Software 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.