We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and AppDynamics 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 the recommended choice over AppDynamics due to its cost-effectiveness, seamless integration with Microsoft technologies, and customizable out-of-the-box functionalities. AppDynamics, while offering various valuable features, is pricey, has a steep learning curve, and lacks a satisfactory end-user experience. Azure Monitor is praised for its application insights, troubleshooting capabilities, ease of configuration and maintenance, and proactive infrastructure information, resulting in a positive ROI.
"After a major incident, root cause analysis is conducted and, most of the time, we understand what caused the incident and how it can be prevented from happening again."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to take a report, and in particular, a visual, and link it to actual application performance and then the consequences. This means you can show how an incident or action has an effect on the business."
"The most valuable feature is the live reporting on the current health\performance of our application"
"The solution helps us save a lot of time on certain tasks."
"The business transaction that stands between multiple applications is proving to be most valuable."
"Before we moved the code to AppDynamics, we had to compare the agile process and also had to make sure that they're following the standards."
"This solution is easy to use and very powerful, it is a complete tool for us."
"This solution not only provides answers but also provides sensor data. This allows us to quickly resolve issues that developers may take a long time to solve."
"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 upside to the solution is if you are working in a Microsoft or Azure environment, it makes things easier."
"It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale."
"Technical support is good and helpful...The initial setup is easy."
"In the last company where I worked about a year ago, it looked very simple."
"The most valuable feature is that it ensures our servers are up."
"Data exporting is easy, and this tool works seamlessly with other solutions. It's a stable and low-priced solution."
"The solution is quite stable."
"Sometimes, it is hard to navigate through and find if something is wrong or figure out where an error stemmed from."
"If it can be able to intelligently provide all the things we need to look at, from a data point of view, that would be very useful."
"I would like to see more of a unified platform. They're very, very new on the server side, machine agents. I want them to be more mature in this area."
"There are many KPIs that are not available in AppDynamics."
"More native support for other hardware is needed because having to install various extensions and perform extra setup for different devices is really challenging, and not as easy or straightforward as it is in other products."
"AppDynamics lacks integration with cloud technology. It probably isn't a good fit for emerging enterprises because it's an on-premise solution, and many newer companies are moving to the cloud. AppDynamics' on-premise technology works reasonably well, but it doesn't have cloud features."
"AppDynamics scaled well up to around 3,000 agents. The performance deteriorated after that, while Dynatrace could support more than 10,000 agents. We were surprised that AppDynamics' scalability is not so good."
"AppDynamics is agent-based, so some customers are reluctant to install the agents in all their production environments. It would be helpful if they had an agentless version. It covers applications on the server, but the solution is weak on the network side. The agent is not deployed on the network components, so it cannot provide complete information about issues on the network layer."
"The biggest one is probably just the user interface. There could be more advanced logging at the database level. They can also improve their query builder to allow you to search for things better, but I last used it about a year ago. They might have already changed a ton of things in the newer versions."
"If it is configured incorrectly, you can end up with a huge bill."
"It's really complex to retrieve or query the logs in Azure Monitor."
"The solution should have cross-connection or cross-communication between tech partners."
"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?)."
"Azure Monitor could improve network performance monitoring and make it more advanced."
"Azure Monitor's integration with applications could be improved."
"The default interface should be improved."
AppDynamics is ranked 5th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 155 reviews while Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews. AppDynamics is rated 8.2, while Azure Monitor is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of AppDynamics writes "Very good real-time monitoring capabilities, deep problem diagnosis, and transaction mapping". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "A powerful Kusto query language but the alerting mechanism needs improvement". AppDynamics is most compared with Dynatrace, Elastic Observability, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and Instana Dynamic APM, whereas Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver). See our AppDynamics vs. Azure Monitor 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.