We performed a comparison between Coralogix and Grafana Loki based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Log Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The best feature of this solution allows us to correlate logs, metrics and traces."
"The solution offers very good convenience filtering."
"Numerous data monitoring tools are available, but Coralogix somehow fine-tunes our policies and effectively supports our teams."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The solution is easy to use and to start with."
"A non-tech person can easily get used to it."
"The best feature of Grafana Loki is that it integrates well with our other tool."
"The solution's stability has never been a problem. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it is an open-source tool that is stable and flexible."
"The most valuable feature of Grafana Loki is the dashboards which are really simple to create."
"The tool can be used in multi-cluster environments."
"Loki also utilizes the same service discovery mechanism as used by Prometheus. So, whatever labeled metadata you see in Prometheus, you have the exact same metadata in the Loki system. Given this level of intricacy and the attempt to address these challenges, I firmly believe that Loki deserves praise for the work."
"We are using Grafana Loki as a database for real-time metrics."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the tool's GUI. The solution's GUI is very user-friendly."
"From my experience, Coralogix has horrible Terraform providers."
"The documentation of the tool could be improved"
"Maybe they could make it more user-friendly."
"The user interface could be more intuitive and explanatory."
"We want it to work at what it is expected to work at and not really based on the updated configuration which one developer has decided to change."
"It would be helpful if Coralogix could integrate the main modules that any organization requires into a single subscription."
"In Grafana Loki, the creation of metrics is not so easy, making it an area that could be made easier."
"The correlation of requests is not simple in Grafana Loki and can be improved."
"Visualization-wise, Grafana Loki's dashboard looks a little outdated compared to other open-source visualization tools like Chronograf."
"We had a well-structured dashboard with a functional query. However, an issue arose when the Kubernetes pod restarted. The statistics from our Grafana query would reset, dropping to zero and starting anew. This was particularly noticeable with linear graphs, which are expected to show consistent growth."
"The solution has shortcomings regarding security monitoring-oriented features that need improvement."
"The Docker container partition feature needs improvement as they do not reuse the space and goes into a pending state."
"The solution's scalability depends on the team managing the Grafana instance."
"The product must improve its UI."
Coralogix is ranked 23rd in Log Management with 7 reviews while Grafana Loki is ranked 13th in Log Management with 12 reviews. Coralogix is rated 8.4, while Grafana Loki is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Coralogix writes "Good capabilities, has a helpful interface and is straightforward to set up". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Grafana Loki writes "Effective for Logging, recovery from node failures is fast and single UI supports metrics, logs, and even tracing". Coralogix is most compared with Datadog, Grafana, Sentry, New Relic and LogRhythm SIEM, whereas Grafana Loki is most compared with Graylog, Wazuh, syslog-ng, Splunk Enterprise Security and Fortinet FortiAnalyzer. See our Coralogix vs. Grafana Loki report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors.
We monitor all Log Management 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.
