We performed a comparison between Elastic Observability and ITRS Geneos for Valuable based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Elastic Observability offers machine learning, custom development, and easy data management. ITRS Geneos is highly customizable but needs improvement in deployment and cloud monitoring. Its setup can also be complex and require onsite support. Both products have reasonable pricing, but Elastic Observability is cost-effective and helps organizations achieve their objectives at a lower price, making it the preferred option.
"The solution has been stable in our usage."
"The most valuable feature of Elastic Observability is the text search."
"It's easy to deploy, and it's very flexible."
"The tool's most valuable feature is centralized logging. Elastic Common Search helps us to search for the logs across the organization."
"Elastic APM has plenty of features, such as the Elastic server for Kibana and many additional plugins. It's a comprehensive tool when used as a logging platform."
"For full stack observability, Elastic is the best tool compared with any other tool ."
"Its diverse set of features available on the cloud is of significant importance."
"We use AppDynamics and Elastic. The reason why we're using Elastic APM is because of the license count. It's very favorable compared to AppDynamics. It's inexpensive; it's economical."
"ITRS uses SNMP to communicate with our devices as well as SNMP net probes installed on our servers."
"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"
"The ability to build integrations to tools that are not monitored out of the box is the most valuable feature."
"The filtering in the Active Console is exceptional. Depending on the user base, some people don't want to see server-level errors, so we have filters set up in the Managed Entities view, which allow us to filter out things that certain groups don't want to see, while allowing them to see other things. It's a great real-time monitoring solution. And you can draw graphs immediately, right from the Active Console, whether they're current graphs or historical graphs."
"This tool allows one to analyse, integrate and customize as per the systems and allows you to set your own rules."
"One of the most valuable features is that it can be configured by non-developers. It doesn't require development expertise to configure it."
"The great advantage of this tool is real-time monitoring."
"The biggest benefit of Geneos is the fact that we can clearly see, if we have an alert, where that alert has come from. We can see the data around that alert and anything that might be relevant is also shown. We can very easily right-click and see why we've received that alert. That's the best part about it, that you've got all the data there with the alerting."
"More web features could be added to the product."
"The solution would be better if it was capable of more automation, especially in a monitoring capacity or for the response to abnormalities."
"The cost must be made more transparent."
"The auto-discovery isn't nearly as good. That's a big portion of it. When you drop the agent onto the JVM and you're trying to figure things out, having to go through and manually do all that is cumbersome."
"Elastic Observability needs to improve the retrieval of logs and metrics from all the instances."
"There could be more low-code features included in the product."
"Elastic Observability needs to have better standardization, logging, and schema."
"Elastic Observability is reactive rather than proactive. It should act as an ITSM tool and be able to create tickets and alerts on Jira."
"There is one drawback to using lightweight data collection: we lack the feature of observability based on time series, such as historical model data. This makes it difficult to view data in ITRS. ITRS needs to improve this feature."
"ITRS have started to make some major changes that we haven't taken on board yet, in the creation of dashboards and more visibility of the metrics that we collect. At the moment, that's something that's lacking, but I know they have addressed it. Still, it’s not that easy to create stuff to help with visibility and dashboarding in Geneos."
"The ITA, the post-incident analytics, could be improved."
"ITRS Geneos is not on the cloud at a time when everyone is moving to the cloud."
"For the solution to stay relevant in the cloud-based monitoring environment Geneos needs more plug-ins with more features. Instead of offering clients workarounds, the solution should have a cloud-based out-of-the-box version."
"The dashboard feature is full of bugs. Grouping items results in a distorted dashboard."
"I would like to see ITRS integrate its setup editor with a SVN to check-in setup XML after major changes."
"ITRS Geneos cloud monitoring is very weak and can use improvement."
Elastic Observability is ranked 7th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 22 reviews while ITRS Geneos is ranked 12th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 57 reviews. Elastic Observability is rated 7.8, while ITRS Geneos is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Elastic Observability writes "The user interface framework lets us do custom development when needed. ". 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". Elastic Observability is most compared with Dynatrace, New Relic, Azure Monitor, Sentry and Splunk APM, whereas ITRS Geneos is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Grafana, Datadog and AppDynamics Server Monitoring. See our Elastic Observability vs. ITRS Geneos report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors and best IT Infrastructure Monitoring 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.