We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) 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 solution because it has better customization and integration options, lower pricing, and more out-of-the-box functionalities with AI for event correlation. It also provides a one-stop place to monitor all resources, making it easier to manage cloud resources across multiple subscriptions.
"I am impressed by the reporting on the average eight ports that we get from this solution."
"The solution's most valuable features are its ability to focus on delivery and maximizing the performance of applications and services."
"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."
"Azure Monitor is very stable."
"It is a robust, stable product."
"The solution very easily integrates with Azure services and in one click you can monitor your resource."
"Azure Monitor is useful because of the useful application insights and telemetry, such as metrics and logs."
"It's easy to use."
"Offers a valuable logging transport feature"
"The cloud login enables us to get our logs from the different platforms that we currently use."
"Our company has a corporate account for Google Cloud and so our systems and clusters integrate really well."
"We find the solution to be stable."
"The features that I have found most valuable are its graphs - if I need any statistics, in Kubernetes or Kong level or VPN level, I can quickly get the reports."
"Provides visibility into the performance uptime."
"I like the monitoring feature."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pros →
"Currently, it seems it's complicated to get the correct information in terms of what to do and how things work."
"The scalability could be improved as there are some limitations."
"There is room for improvement in stability."
"The price could be lower but it is not a must."
"There are a lot of things that take more time to do, such as charting, alerting, and correlation of data, and things like that. Azure Monitor doesn't tell you why something happened. It just tells you that it happened. It should also have some type of AI. Environments and applications are becoming more and more complex every day with hundreds or thousands of microservices. Therefore, having to do a lot of the stuff manually takes a lot of time, and on top of that, troubleshooting issues takes a lot of time. The traditional method of troubleshooting doesn't really work for or apply to this environment we're in. So, having an AI-based system and the ability to automate deployments of your monitoring and configurations makes it much easier."
"They should include advanced logging on the database level in the Azure pool."
"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."
"The monitoring of Kubernetes clusters needs improvement to be on par with competitors."
"While we are satisfied with the overall performance, in certain cases we must add additional metrics and additional tools like Grafana and Dynatrace."
"The logging functionality could be better."
"It could be even more automated."
"This solution could be improved if it offered the ability to analyze charts, such as a solution like Kibana."
"If I want to track any round-trip or breakdowns of my response times, I'm not able to get it. My request goes through various levels of the Google Cloud Platform (GCP) and comes back to my client machine. Suppose that my request has taken 10 seconds overall, so if I want to break it down, to see where the delay is happening within my architecture, I am not able to find that out using Stackdriver."
"The process of logging analytics can be improved"
"It could be more stable."
"Lacking sufficient operations documentation."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Cons →
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 45 reviews while Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is ranked 27th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 10 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is rated 8.0. 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 Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) writes "Good logging and tracing but does need more profiling capabilities". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and SolarWinds Pingdom, whereas Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is most compared with AWS X-Ray, Datadog, New Relic, Amazon CloudWatch and Prometheus. See our Azure Monitor vs. Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) 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.