We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and Elastic Observability 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 has better integration with Microsoft technologies, more out-of-the-box functionalities, lower cost, and better customer support. Elastic Observability is noted for its machine learning and custom development capabilities, but has a steep learning curve, lacks comprehensive visualization and metrics, and could improve pricing. Overall, Azure Monitor is seen as a more robust and stable product that offers a centralized location for resource monitoring.
"Data exporting is easy, and this tool works seamlessly with other solutions. It's a stable and low-priced solution."
"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."
"Log analytics and log queries are the most valuable features of Azure Monitor."
"You can scale the product."
"The tools for logs and metrics are pretty good and easy to use."
"The solution works well overall. It's easy to implement and simple to use."
"The solution has tons of valuable features."
"For full stack observability, Elastic is the best tool compared with any other tool ."
"The solution allows us to dig deep into data."
"Elastic Observability significantly improves incident response time by providing quick access to logs and data across various sources. For instance, searching for specific keywords in logs spanning over a month from multiple data sources can be completed within seconds."
"The price is very less expensive compared to the other solutions."
"The ability to ensure that the data is searchable and maintainable is highly valuable for our purposes."
"The product has connectors to many services."
"The solution is open-source and helps with back-end logging. It is also easy to handle."
"We can view and connect different sources to the dashboard using it."
"Automation related to gathering metrics from more applications could be improved."
"The scalability could be improved as there are some limitations."
"There is room for improvement in stability."
"The solution's monitoring feature has limitations for analyzing multiple metrics."
"There are a lot of things that take more time to do, such as charting, alerting, and correlation of data, and things like that. Azure Monitor doesn't tell you why something happened. It just tells you that it happened. It should also have some type of AI. Environments and applications are becoming more and more complex every day with hundreds or thousands of microservices. Therefore, having to do a lot of the stuff manually takes a lot of time, and on top of that, troubleshooting issues takes a lot of time. The traditional method of troubleshooting doesn't really work for or apply to this environment we're in. So, having an AI-based system and the ability to automate deployments of your monitoring and configurations makes it much easier."
"I'd like the solution to do more around vulnerability assessment. It's lacking in the product right now."
"This solution has fewer features than some of its competitors, so adding more features to it would make it better."
"have used multiple products like Webex and PRTG. Some features could be added. Azure Monitor should add SMS and APIs. We have very limited access to Azure Monitor. I usually get alerts on my phone when they are integrated with Slack. I am not always available, but my team is. Sometimes, I am traveling and don't have access to my email, but I have Slack and other third-party projects that send me instant messages if a sensor goes down."
"Improving code insight related to infrastructure and network, particularly focusing on aspects such as firewalls, switches, routers, and testing would be beneficial."
"The solution would be better if it was capable of more automation, especially in a monitoring capacity or for the response to abnormalities."
"There's a steep learning curve if you've never used this solution before."
"The tool's scalability involves a more complex implementation process. It requires careful calculations to determine the number of nodes needed, the specifications of each node, and the configuration of hot, warm, and cold zones for data storage. Additionally, managing log retention policies adds further complexity. The solution's pricing also needs to be cheaper."
"The cost must be made more transparent."
"Elastic Observability’s price could be improved."
"In the future, Elastic APM needs a portfolio iTool. They can provide an easy way to develop the custom UI for Kibana."
"Elastic Observability is an excellent product for monitoring and visibility, but it lacks predictive analytics. Most solutions are aligned with the AIOps requirements, but this piece is missing in Elastic and should be included."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while Elastic Observability is ranked 7th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 22 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while Elastic Observability is rated 7.8. 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 Elastic Observability writes "The user interface framework lets us do custom development when needed. ". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and AWS X-Ray, whereas Elastic Observability is most compared with Dynatrace, New Relic, AppDynamics, Datadog and Sentry. See our Azure Monitor vs. Elastic Observability 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.