We performed a comparison between Grafana and Alluvio Aternity based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Grafana is preferred over Alluvio Aternity due to its open-source nature, flexibility in integration with other tools, and ability to cater to multiple use cases. It offers a more user-friendly experience with customizable and visually appealing graphs, live monitoring, alerts, and heat maps. Alluvio Aternity could benefit from more customizable reporting options and a better licensing model.
"The dashboard is very effective."
"The two most valuable features for us are its abilities to validate the customer experience and to measure performance before and after upgrades."
"The ability to monitor crash and health event issues at a user level"
"Desktop monitoring, and being able to understand the performance of applications that runs on the desktop."
"The data collected by the agents on each end point is the most valuable feature for us."
"The most valuable feature is the application performance troubleshooting because Aternity is able to provide the performance from the end-user perspective. It doesn't just give the standard application logon time, etc., rather it's also able to measure the performance inside the application, the performance of specific transactions in the application, and break it down into three elements: the client time, the network time, and the server time. This gives us a lot of insights into what we need to focus on to improve the performance of an application."
"There are also built-in activities that let you measure things like preview mail, open address book, and send mail. Those are the activities that we are able to get measurements on, and those are things we have not seen in other software monitoring tools."
"The application response time. That's what our business has been having a problem with."
"It integrates well with other solutions."
"The installation process is easy. We have deployed it on the cloud. I have around 20 to 30 people using the solution in my company."
"It is a stable, reliable product."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the UI dashboard because we need to create a dashboard on Grafana to monitor our data."
"The dashboards are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable thing was that it had a good visualization tool."
"The most valuable feature of Grafana is the ease to build dashboards from observability construction. Additionally, the page services and integration are good."
"It is a stable solution."
"Some of the dashboarding and reporting on the analytics side could be improved. I think they realize it. Obviously, some of the desktop monitoring metrics always can be improved."
"I want more reporting around asset management, with greater flexibility and customization ability."
"Its user interface and features should be improved. They don't support new versions of certain Linux editions. That is one of the reasons why we have to move to another solution."
"They've additionally added some great color coding, but they need to explain better and drive down further on the meanings of this workflow."
"The licensing model doesn't suit the market we are in and has room for improvement."
"Signature development process requires deep technical expertise in the application and in the use of their studio tools that help you create it."
"Aternity doesn't currently provide metrics about actual employee experience of all business-critical apps. It's something you have to build out. It's not 'canned' that way and there is a lot of configuration that you have to do to the environment to collect the data you want to collect and that is important to you."
"Being able to add custom monitoring to dashboards would be nice. Right now, if you want to monitor the value of a registry key on your systems, to get that added into the dashboard you have to reach out to Aternity so they can start looking for that value. It would be interesting if that were more of a self-serve function."
"I find issues with Grafana. For example, I am unable to open some services there. Then, we have to open ten different tabs to get it fixed. And it's annoying when there's something going on; we want to check Grafana, and it throws four different errors."
"Its interface could be more accessible."
"It is limited on the reporting type supported, which is important for managerial-level officers who want reports that are either general or specific."
"The security needs to be improved, such as the capacity to add permissions on dashboards."
"The solution has room for improvement with a better API to help automate the construction of the dashboards easier."
"They should improve the functioning of its editing tool."
"I have a problem with Grafana in the area of documentation."
"Grafana need to improve the logging functionality."
Alluvio Aternity is ranked 21st in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 37 reviews while Grafana is ranked 6th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 39 reviews. Alluvio Aternity is rated 8.4, while Grafana is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Alluvio Aternity writes "Not only helped us know which devices to refresh, but helped us determine if a refresh was even necessary, with factual data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Grafana writes "Agent-free with great dashboards and an active community". Alluvio Aternity is most compared with Dynatrace, Nexthink, SysTrack, AppDynamics and Azure Monitor, whereas Grafana is most compared with New Relic, Sentry, Azure Monitor, Elastic Observability and Dynatrace. See our Alluvio Aternity vs. Grafana 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.