We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and ITRS Geneos 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 a cost-effective and easy-to-use solution that integrates well with other Microsoft technologies. It is highly recommended due to its lower cost, ease of configuration and maintenance, and integration capabilities. On the other hand, while ITRS Geneos is highly customizable and flexible, it lacks thread-level monitoring and requires a complex initial setup that may require direct onsite support for several weeks. It may also be too expensive for non-banking and non-finance industries. Azure Monitor is a more affordable and user-friendly option for developers who want to integrate with Visual Studio and monitor cloud resources across multiple subscriptions, making it the preferred solution.
"Good load and metrics gathering and very good analysis."
"The most valuable feature is the universality of their functionalities in all Azure services, including, software solutions."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Data exporting is easy, and this tool works seamlessly with other solutions. It's a stable and low-priced solution."
"The tools for logs and metrics are pretty good and easy to use."
"Recently, they have improved their integration with other resources, so we get even more robust data."
"It has good troubleshooting features."
"The solution is quite stable."
"The Netprobe is so lightweight compared to the agents that most monitoring tools use. It's really superior to the competition. The agent that is used by almost every competitive tool takes a lot more system resources. It's slower and it requires a greater effort and more compromises in terms of security to install on the monitored servers. With Geneos, because it lives outside the code, it is far easier and far less taxing on the monitored systems."
"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 flexibility of the product is most valuable. It is highly customizable. If you put your mind to it and think of something you could do, there's a good possibility you can get it integrated within the console, if it's not readily available. The simplicity or ease of customization has been valuable."
"This solution has helped provide relief to existing Level 2 teams, allowing them to focus efforts on in-depth problem analysis."
"One of the most valuable features of ITRS Geneos is the active time feature that helps with the trading applications that I support."
"Custom script toolkits"
"Tons of default modules which are available out of the box"
"have used multiple products like Webex and PRTG. Some features could be added. Azure Monitor should add SMS and APIs. We have very limited access to Azure Monitor. I usually get alerts on my phone when they are integrated with Slack. I am not always available, but my team is. Sometimes, I am traveling and don't have access to my email, but I have Slack and other third-party projects that send me instant messages if a sensor goes down."
"The solution's monitoring feature has limitations for analyzing multiple metrics."
"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."
"It's really complex to retrieve or query the logs in Azure Monitor."
"The scalability could be improved as there are some limitations."
"I need connectivity with cost management."
"The query builder could be better. In comparison to other monitoring tools, in order to use Azure Monitor, your engineers need to have KQL experience. If they don't, it's not intuitive as a system."
"If it is configured incorrectly, you can end up with a huge bill."
"The ITA, the post-incident analytics, could be improved."
"One area where there is room for improvement is the log file. I would like to be able to do a pre-run on the log files. When you are testing log files for regular expressions, it would be good to be able to do a quick check up front on that side of things before you release that into production."
"The main feature that needs work is the Dashboard designer."
"Their cloud monitoring solution needs to be improved. I have already given them the feedback that it's not capable of meeting the latest technology needs."
"One thing that could be improved in terms of rapid scaling would be more ability to clone aspects of an implementation. It seems like there are opportunities in this area, where we have repetitive tasks to do when it comes to implementing things on new servers or on new gateways. It would be great if there was an easy way to clone something that had already been done."
"Geneos' application monitoring could be improved a lot. Products like AppDynamics and Dynatrace provide the process thread-level monitoring, but Geneos lacks these capabilities."
"t needs to have better middleware integration for things such as application and Microsft SQL servers."
"It needs to be easier to configure, especially with the JMX plugins."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while ITRS Geneos is ranked 11th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 57 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while ITRS Geneos 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 ITRS Geneos writes "The flexible dashboard sets it apart from competing tools, but it's costly and lacks scalability". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Prometheus, Sentry and Grafana, whereas ITRS Geneos is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Grafana, Prometheus and Datadog. See our Azure Monitor vs. ITRS Geneos 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.