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."
"The solution is sufficiently stable."
"It is easy to navigate the menu and create tests."
"The performance of Datadog is good."
"The solution allows flexibility and heightened observability for presenting data, creating indicators, and setting service-level objectives."
"Anything I've wanted to do, I found a way to get it done through Datadog."
"The most valuable aspect is for us to have everything in one place."
"The management of SLOs and their related burn-rate monitors have allowed us to onboard teams to on-call fast."
"The most valuable aspects of the product include the APM and profiler."
"It's a good solution. It covers all aspects of monitoring purposes."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Opsview is the ability to clone the services when you're monitoring something out of the test setup."
"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."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"Federated views for Datadog dashboards are critical as large companies utilize multiple instances of the product and cannot link the metrics or correlate the metrics together. This stunts the usage of Datadog."
"I would like the tooling to have better integration in Slack, specifically sending out reminders to the relevant people to take breaks, do a retrospective, and specify with emojis which messages to log."
"We need to learn more about the session reply feature inside of DD."
"I'm not sure what kind of features are in the roadmap right now, but I encourage the development of features for defining your organization, and allowing the visibility of what kind of metrics you can get. Those features would be really useful for us."
"I found the documentation can sometimes be confusing."
"It does not have the best interface."
"Datadog is expensive."
"Even though it is powerful on its own, the UI-based design lacks elegance, efficiency, and complexity."
"Some of the graphics on Opsview could 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."
"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."
"Pricing and a few certain aspects in the solution needs to be improved."
"Customized reporting can be improved."
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.