We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and IBM Application Performance Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I am impressed by the reporting on the average eight ports that we get from this solution."
"Good load and metrics gathering and very good analysis."
"Recently, they have improved their integration with other resources, so we get even more robust data."
"The solution very easily integrates with Azure services and in one click you can monitor your resource."
"In the last company where I worked about a year ago, it looked very simple."
"Technical support is helpful."
"It has good troubleshooting features."
"Azure Monitor is useful because of the useful application insights and telemetry, such as metrics and logs."
"The most valuable feature is the breakdown that it provides, such as a description of the fields for a particular transaction."
"It's easy to use."
"The initial setup was straightforward and took minimal effort."
"IBM Application Performance Management helped us increased our response time by 80% and cost 60% less."
"The transaction tracking feature from IBM is the most important feature for us. It is something that provides a terrific value for us and our clients. It has a lot of data sources and agents that are collectors. It is also stable."
"Because we have partnerships with other partners, I can share a bit about what I've noticed with IBM APM compared to other vendor solutions. Specifically, with IBM, the visibility into detailed process information is more tangible. On the OS level, APM displays all processes (or the top 10 processes) that are consuming CPU or resident memory. This is the most important thing that is not always available with other vendors."
"I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten."
"As a younger product it still has room for feature improvement and enhancement."
"The solution's monitoring feature has limitations for analyzing multiple metrics."
"In terms of pricing, Azure Monitor's billing based on data size can sometimes lead to increased costs, especially when developers need to purge data frequently. While there are mechanisms in place to track and manage this, there is room for improvement in terms of optimizing data pausing and related processes. Enhancements in this area could help mitigate potential billing concerns and provide a more seamless experience for users."
"Currently, it seems it's complicated to get the correct information in terms of what to do and how things work."
"Azure Monitor could improve the visualization aspect and integrate better with other third-party services."
"They can simplify the overall complexity since you have multiple data sources in the cloud for monitoring. It's quite simple, but there are so many portals. It takes time to work with it. If they could simplify the user configuration, that would be good."
"The solution needs better monitoring. It requires better log controls."
"Azure Monitor is not user-friendly, and the interface is not exciting. Switching between the dashboards is not easy."
"With APM, we noticed that the agent can cause a lot of issues for the application, making the agent very unreliable. Many issues are happening, and we've had to discuss it with support to try and get a fix. It affects application availability, and sometimes actions fail because of the agent, degrading the performance of the application."
"The stability is not great and should be better."
"They should focus on potentially enhancing the dashboard to make it more contemporary and adding some customization options. Furthermore, there might be room for improvement in the pricing policy."
"Its web user interface is a little bit old in comparison to other solutions, such as New Relic, and it should be improved. Its scalability and technical support should also be improved. Currently, it is scalable, but only in a vertical way. They provide good technical support, but the initial steps for a new case can be improved to fasten the resolution process."
"Technical support can be slow and needs improvement."
"It's still missing some platforms. For example, if you look to applications itself, it is missing the interface."
"The demo that was provided to us is not working very well. At times, there are errors."
More IBM Application Performance Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 45 reviews while IBM Application Performance Management is ranked 54th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 7 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while IBM Application Performance Management is rated 6.4. 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 IBM Application Performance Management writes "A multi-functional solution but has poor stability and performance-related issues". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Grafana, whereas IBM Application Performance Management is most compared with Instana Dynamic APM, Dynatrace, BMC Compuware Strobe, IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager and AppDynamics. See our Azure Monitor vs. IBM Application Performance Management 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.