We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and BMC TrueSight Operations Management 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 preferred option due to its ease of setup, low-cost pricing, and integration with other Microsoft technologies. It also provides a more convenient and efficient solution for developers by offering a one-stop place to monitor all cloud resources across multiple subscriptions in one dashboard. BMC TrueSight Operations Management has valuable features, but needs improvement in areas such as cloud monitoring, reporting dashboards, and pricing.
"It is a move-in powerful feature compared to other market-leading tools."
"Log analytics and log queries are the most valuable features of Azure Monitor."
"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."
"A product that is well-integrated for monitoring Microsoft Azure."
"The most valuable feature is the universality of their functionalities in all Azure services, including, software solutions."
"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."
"Good load and metrics gathering and very good analysis."
"The solution's event management capabilities are fantastic. We do a best of breed. If, on the network side, they use a different tool, we pull all that data in so that we have a single console. It's kind of like the monitor of monitors. We're able to aggregate all the different types of data sets, whether it's log data, app data, OS data, infrastructure data, or network data. We're able to aggregate all those events and then correlate and be able to say we're having an event."
"Valuable features include wide support for monitoring, strong event management, service management capability, baselining (analytics) and easy to integrate other tools with it."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The tool is flexible enough to be customized based on customer requirements."
"The noise reduction for ticketing works much better than we have seen in a lot of other companies."
"We're using native monitoring capabilities for all our server hardware, for visibility for applications, for URLs, for webpage response and accuracy, and for monitoring network throughput in a lot of particular instances. We're using lightweight protocols for pinging, for DNS, for LDAP."
"The ability of this platform to monitor the very diverse assets that we maintain around the world is its most valuable feature... We support a vast array of manufacturers' equipment, like HP, IBM, Cisco, Dell, EMC, Hitachi... We can do it all with [this] one [solution]."
"It is breadth. It covers so many different technologies which can roll up into a single console."
"Lacks information including details related to where problems lie."
"The monitoring of Kubernetes clusters needs improvement to be on par with competitors."
"We cannot use AI services with the solution."
"There is room for improvement in stability."
"Azure Monitor could improve the visualization aspect and integrate better with other third-party services."
"Enhancing and reaching a level of detail that facilitates pinpointing and addressing issues at such a refined level within the application and database components would be helpful."
"Automation related to gathering metrics from more applications could be improved."
"I'd like the solution to do more around vulnerability assessment. It's lacking in the product right now."
"It would be better if the initial setup and deployment were more straightforward."
"The sizing (which is difficult), the maintenance of it and the upgrade paths. This is a difficult area which is not easy to cover, as every client has a different approach of implementing the product."
"The graphs are extremely limited. We don't have a lot of dashboard options. To make reports and dashboards more useful, we usually need to integrate some dashboard solutions."
"In our company, we faced some issues with the solution’s application endpoint, IP, and the physical location of the transactions."
"The solution should improve predicting events and flaws in service. It also needs to improve integration with other systems."
"I would really like to see out-of-the-box support for monitoring uninterruptible power supplies."
"More modules for less popular applications and better documentation."
"Application performance management (APM) is an area with certain shortcomings in the solution that needs improvement. I"
More BMC TrueSight Operations Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while BMC TrueSight Operations Management is ranked 17th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 49 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while BMC TrueSight Operations Management 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 BMC TrueSight Operations Management writes "The product is reasonably priced, but the solution is a little obsolete because it is deployed on-premise". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Grafana, whereas BMC TrueSight Operations Management is most compared with BMC Helix Monitor, Dynatrace, ServiceNow IT Operations Management, Zabbix and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our Azure Monitor vs. BMC TrueSight Operations Management report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors and best Cloud Monitoring Software 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.