We performed a comparison between SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor and Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Google Cloud's operations suite is favored by users over SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor due to its scalability, stability, and user-friendly interface. The cloud logging feature and ability to access logs from various platforms are appreciated, but more metrics and tools for application logs are desired. Technical support is highly regarded, and setup is generally easy.
"I like the monitoring feature."
"Our company has a corporate account for Google Cloud and so our systems and clusters integrate really well."
"The cloud login enables us to get our logs from the different platforms that we currently use."
"We find the solution to be stable."
"Google's technical support is very good."
"Offers a valuable logging transport feature"
"Provides visibility into the performance uptime."
"The features that I have found most valuable are its graphs - if I need any statistics, in Kubernetes or Kong level or VPN level, I can quickly get the reports."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pros →
"The component and cable monitoring are good. SolarWinds is more intuitive and user-friendly than AppDynamics. The AppDynamics console is more complex because it's a more feature-rich solution, so it's not easy for somebody to pick it up."
"Monitoring the components on your devices with out of the box monitors or the ability to create new ones (SAM)"
"The initial setup was relatively easy, and we didn't have to install anything. All we had to do was put on the devices we wanted to monitor."
"Identifying the problem statement is easy."
"AppInsight for SQL: Enables us to see the relevant error log entries on the same page as performance parameters."
"The solution is end-to-end from the network and the application to the processes. Everything about the enterprise infrastructure is being covered by the solution. It's easy to use and easy to navigate and one of the leaders among monitoring solutions."
"The solution can be deployed quickly."
"I am impressed with the tool's AppStack feature which mainly helps us in the identification process. This feature can give an overview of the fault and help us identify the issues for performance degradation. Instead of looking at multiple places, we can look at a single place to identify the issues."
"This solution could be improved if it offered the ability to analyze charts, such as a solution like Kibana."
"The product provides minimal metrics that are insufficient."
"While we are satisfied with the overall performance, in certain cases we must add additional metrics and additional tools like Grafana and Dynatrace."
"The process of logging analytics can be improved"
"The logging functionality could be better."
"Lacking sufficient operations documentation."
"It could be more stable."
"If I want to track any round-trip or breakdowns of my response times, I'm not able to get it. My request goes through various levels of the Google Cloud Platform (GCP) and comes back to my client machine. Suppose that my request has taken 10 seconds overall, so if I want to break it down, to see where the delay is happening within my architecture, I am not able to find that out using Stackdriver."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Cons →
"SAM AppInsight for SQL: The ability to ignore fragmentation of specific indexes."
"A lot of times, we have to do a lot of manual cleanups."
"Solarwinds should come up the same monitoring system for other certificate expiration alert apart from SSL."
"Currently SolarWinds SAM offers AppInsight for modern versions of: IIS, Exchange, SQL Server. They have shown to be powerful and insightful tools. However, AppInsight needs to be offered for more applications: Citrix, SharePoint, AX, etc."
"This product has no real downside unless they fail to continue development of its capabilities."
"It should also be easier to upgrade SolarWinds. AppDynamics is harder to deploy but easier to upgrade. So AppDynamics takes a lot of time and effort to install, but you can upgrade it in minutes. SolarWinds is the opposite. It's easy to deploy, but upgrades take forever. To date, nobody can complete it on time, so the production environment is sitting idle."
"One area that could benefit from improvement is its performance"
"It needs time-based functions for monitoring. Some things need to be polled on a specific schedule or only during a specific window."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor Pricing and Cost Advice →
Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is ranked 24th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 10 reviews while SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor is ranked 17th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 38 reviews. Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is rated 8.0, while SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) writes "Good logging and tracing but does need more profiling capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor writes "We use this product for base and application monitoring. ". Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is most compared with AWS X-Ray, Datadog, Azure Monitor, New Relic and Amazon CloudWatch, whereas SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor is most compared with Azure Monitor, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Nagios XI. See our Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) vs. SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor 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.
