We performed a comparison between Datadog and Opsview based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Monitoring Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"APM and tracing are super useful."
"Integrating Datadog with other platforms has made our monitoring processes a bit easier. It's not super simple, but it's manageable."
"The most valuable feature of Datadog is its logs."
"The feature I have found most valuable is when I can reuse existing monitors and alerts for new dashboards."
"Datadog's ability to group and visualize the servers and the data makes it relatively easy for the root cause analysis."
"Flame graphs are pretty useful for understanding how GraphQL resolves our federated queries when it comes to identifying slow points in our requests. In our microservice environment with 170 services."
"The most useful feature is the APM."
"Datadog has proven to be easy to set up and legible for both development and operational teams."
"The most valuable feature of Opsview is the ability to clone the services when you're monitoring something out of the test setup."
"I am satisfied with the overall product since it works well…It is a stable solution."
"What was very compelling about OpsView was that we could dial out the noise and have meaningful and actionable alerts."
"We use this solution for internal monitoring our own cloud platform because we are a public cloud provider. We also use it for monitoring purposes on behalf of our clients."
"It's a good solution. It covers all aspects of monitoring purposes."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The logging could be improved in the future."
"Datadog is expensive."
"We would like to see some versioning system for the Synthetic Tests so that we could have a backup of our tests since they are time-consuming to make and very easy to damage in a moment of error."
"While I like the ease of use, when compared with Tenable Nessus they could still improve their usability."
"All solutions have some area to improve, and in Datadog they can improve their overall technology moving forward."
"While the tool is robust with many different capabilities, users would greatly benefit from more examples in the documentation."
"I found the documentation can sometimes be confusing."
"The documentation could be improved regarding setting up the agent properly and debugging."
"Pricing and a few certain aspects in the solution needs to be improved."
"Some of the graphics on Opsview could be improved."
"Maybe the graphical representation can be improved. It can be enhanced for better visualization. It could be a little better. And the graph center can be improved."
"Customized reporting can be improved."
"In a future release, we would like to have Observ for AI. Any AI and intelligence it can add to the monitoring is obviously beneficial. We would also like to have automated callouts."
Datadog is ranked 2nd in Network Monitoring Software with 137 reviews while Opsview is ranked 32nd in Network Monitoring Software with 24 reviews. Datadog is rated 8.6, while Opsview is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Opsview writes "Responsive and easy to customize alerts for, while being priced similarly to its competition". Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, Azure Monitor, New Relic, AWS X-Ray and AppDynamics, whereas Opsview is most compared with OP5 Monitor, Zabbix, Nagios XI, Instana Infrastructure Monitoring and SCOM. See our Datadog vs. Opsview report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors, and best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Network Monitoring Software 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.