We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and Alluvio Aternity 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 choice over Alluvio Aternity as it has robust monitoring abilities for cloud resources across multiple subscriptions, customizable and out-of-the-box functionalities, low cost, and integration with other Microsoft technologies. Alluvio Aternity provides valuable data on machine health and performance but could benefit from more customizable reporting options and detailed performance counters.
"Aternity provides metrics about actual employee experience of all business-critical apps, rather than just a few. It does some out-of-the-box monitoring for the Office suite, but you can create custom monitoring for any of your applications, whether a web client or a desktop application."
"The most valuable feature is the application performance troubleshooting because Aternity is able to provide the performance from the end-user perspective. It doesn't just give the standard application logon time, etc., rather it's also able to measure the performance inside the application, the performance of specific transactions in the application, and break it down into three elements: the client time, the network time, and the server time. This gives us a lot of insights into what we need to focus on to improve the performance of an application."
"All of it, but it depends on who the end user is. The folks that support the applications, like the signatures that we've developed, it gives them feedback on their application performance."
"Aternity's Digital Experience Management Quadrant (DEM-Q) has been a game changer for us. While knowing your own metrics is nice, if you don't know how you compare to others or what the numbers should be, then it doesn't tell you much. This solution puts that into context (if we are doing better than others or worse), which helps us prioritize where we want to focus and do improvements versus that's just how slow it's supposed to be. It's also great in communicating what we are doing and why we're doing it to our IT leadership teams, by saying, while we're pretty far behind others in certain categories, the time and changes for our prioritizations are justified."
"There are many valuable features. If I had to single out one, it would be the UXI score. That's a proprietary Aternity score that tells you how good or bad the experience is for a user on that particular machine, for a particular app. It neatly encapsulates the pain of the user in a single score. It's very easy to find issues and then drill down further into those issues, based on that score."
"The detailed level of information you are able to get on the complete environment all of the way down to a specific machine."
"While it also provides desktop metrics, the main thing we use it for is monitoring our applications."
"As a financial institution, we have a lot of applications that are either written internally or bought from a vendor and customized for us. Having a tool that lets us monitor specific transactions in those applications allows us to focus on the transactions that are important to the business."
"It is a robust, stable product."
"Provides an overview and high-level information."
"It's a Microsoft native tool, so it works well with other Microsoft technologies, which is predominantly what our customer end-user base is."
"The dashboard allows us to easily track various metrics and quickly understand the overall health of our system."
"I am impressed by the reporting on the average eight ports that we get from this solution."
"It has good troubleshooting features."
"The most valuable feature is the universality of their functionalities in all Azure services, including, software solutions."
"The most valuable features of Azure Monitor are the login analytics workspace and we can write any kind of custom queries in order to receive the data that is inserted into the login analytics workspace, diagnostic settings, et cetera."
"Signature development process requires deep technical expertise in the application and in the use of their studio tools that help you create it."
"Some of the dashboarding and reporting on the analytics side could be improved. I think they realize it. Obviously, some of the desktop monitoring metrics always can be improved."
"The thing that I think most companies like ourselves would want would be an easier way to customize custom scripts."
"To monitor these transactions, you need to look at it, analyze it and capture it. It requires a little bit of work, but in an environment like ours, you need it to be easier."
"In terms of a new feature, it would be good if we could restrict a user to a specific application or server. We have several customers, and we have to set up one or two servers for each customer. We have to set up one server for production and one for the test environment. Each user at the customer level can see all applications and the data of all applications, which is not really useful and good. We should be able to restrict user access at the application level or server level."
"I would like to see more granular performance counters collected and viewable from the endpoints. That would be great."
"Their technical support should be improved in terms of response time. Its stability should also be better. We are currently using version 10, and its stability is not so high. The server crashes from time to time and needs to be restarted. Sometimes, you also have problems with applications."
"We are waiting for the GA release of their agent. I hope they can do better when they release their endpoint agents. Right now, we are not able to measure some applications, core applications, because it's relying on a specific version of the agent and that agent has not come out yet and there's no ETA. I would like to see them speed up time to market when they release agents."
"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."
"The price could be lower but it is not a must."
"n comparison to New Relic, which I've used before, it's a bit more complicated. It's not as easy to use. It also took some time to get it working. The implementation needs to be simpler."
"The solution needs better monitoring. It requires better log controls."
"We cannot use AI services with the solution."
"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."
"Azure Monitor is not user-friendly, and the interface is not exciting. Switching between the dashboards is not easy."
Alluvio Aternity is ranked 21st in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 37 reviews while Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews. Alluvio Aternity is rated 8.4, while Azure Monitor is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Alluvio Aternity writes "Not only helped us know which devices to refresh, but helped us determine if a refresh was even necessary, with factual data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "A powerful Kusto query language but the alerting mechanism needs improvement". Alluvio Aternity is most compared with Dynatrace, Nexthink, SysTrack, AppDynamics and Datadog, whereas Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Prometheus, Sentry and Grafana. See our Alluvio Aternity 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.
