We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and New Relic 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 praised for its lower cost, better integration with Microsoft technologies, and its ability to monitor cloud resources across multiple subscriptions. Although New Relic is easy to use and provides in-depth application information, it is criticized for its pricing structure and lack of network monitoring features. Azure Monitor also offers valuable resources for new users with customizable templates and best practices from Microsoft. Overall, Azure Monitor is regarded as a strong and dependable product that offers excellent value for its cost.
"The solution has tons of valuable features."
"It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the alert system, which can be set according to our metrics. The integration is smooth."
"Provides an overview and high-level information."
"Azure Monitor is really just a source for Dynatrace. It's just collecting data and monitoring the environment and the infrastructure. It is fairly good at that."
"One of the most useful aspects of this solution is the out-of-the-box functionality on all areas, especially on Application Insights, zero instrumentation, and artificial intelligence for event correlation."
"The solution integrates well with the Microsoft platform."
"Azure Monitor is a very easy-to-use product in the cloud environment."
"The most valuable features are the dashboards and tracing."
"The most valuable feature is application monitoring."
"We appreciate the way that this solution allows us to monitor the ongoing status of the UI at any given time."
"We detect issues using dashboards that we built on New Relic."
"The most valuable feature of New Relic is its ease of use."
"We use it for monitoring, identifying when services go down, or when they are outside of what we would consider normal operations."
"The monitoring so far has been good and we are happy with it."
"They instrument up from the bottom to the top – every piece of code - they have a very perfect read of what’s being done, and how long it’s taking."
"There is room for improvement in stability."
"Although it's not always the case, the price can sometimes get expensive. This depends on a number of factors, such as how many services you are trying to integrate with Azure Monitor and how much storage they're consuming each month (for example, how large are the log files?)."
"We encounter some difficulties in monitoring the operating system on its own."
"The default interface should be improved."
"They need to work on a more hybrid deployment that will allow us to monitor local on-premise deployments and connect to different systems. I would like to see more integration."
"In my opinion, they should improve the overall user experience, especially when it comes to indexing and searching collective logs."
"I would like more transparency when we use the solution with another environment, like on-premises, or on another cloud environment, like AWS or GCP."
"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."
"It gives you amazing statistics, but doesn’t give you enough information about what to do with the statistics."
"Some of our customers see New Relic as a promising product to have, and we would like to deliver it to them. The only way we would be able to do that would be if we had server appliance for clients that we could install in their data centres."
"In addition, its difficult to have a predictive tool to see how the application would behave in the future when it basically only shows the historical data."
"One thing that we noticed was that historical information was only for a limited period, which was not helpful in certain scenarios. For example, if I want to size my system for an event for New Year or Christmas season based on the historical data, I won't be able to find the historical data. Currently, the data is limited to three months. It would be helpful if they can provide historical data for a longer duration so that we can plan our system accordingly."
"In the next release, I'd like to see a better pricing structure."
"I would like if it could have predictive analysis. Today, we only have the option to configure thresholds."
"I would like an infrastructure network that provides real-time views, showing the issues."
"New Relic APM could improve error debugging and the correlation with the logs. We are receiving some alerts or alarms but we need to correlate with the error log, but it is difficult if it is more than seven months retention period, it is hard to trace. We need this especially for getting historical information."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while New Relic is ranked 3rd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 151 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while New Relic is rated 8.6. 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 New Relic writes "Has a simple user interface and end-to-end monitoring and self-healing features". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Prometheus, Sentry and Elastic Observability, whereas New Relic is most compared with Dynatrace, Datadog, Elastic Observability, Grafana and Prometheus. See our Azure Monitor vs. New Relic 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.
