We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and Grafana based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Users prefer Grafana over Azure Monitor as it offers highly customizable and visually appealing graphs, flexibility in integration with other tools, and is open-source. Although Grafana's customer service and support have mixed reviews, its ease of setup and moderate pricing make it a popular choice for data visualization and analytics.
"The tool's most valuable feature is the alert system, which can be set according to our metrics. The integration is smooth."
"Good load and metrics gathering and very good analysis."
"It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale."
"Azure Monitor is very stable."
"Data exporting is easy, and this tool works seamlessly with other solutions. It's a stable and low-priced solution."
"You can scale the product."
"I am monitoring all of my Azure Monitor and getting good reports. I can customize the reports to get the information I need. I am also getting emails about which AAS instances are down and everything in the system related to my services. It is easy to use, scalable, and user-friendly. Microsoft has Many guides and videos to help you understand how to create and use Azure Monitor."
"The most valuable features of Azure Monitor are the login analytics workspace and we can write any kind of custom queries in order to receive the data that is inserted into the login analytics workspace, diagnostic settings, et cetera."
"What I found most valuable in Grafana is that it has a lot of integrations and features that I need for data processing and visualization."
"It integrates well with other solutions."
"Grafana's best features are live monitoring and alerts."
"The comparison feature is very good."
"This solution provides valuable insights into the health of our infrastructure in real time."
"Plugin: Connecting Grafana to multiple APIs of leading monitoring tools and alerting tools."
"The best feature was the creation of graphs and trends."
"The solution can scale well."
"In terms of pricing, Azure Monitor's billing based on data size can sometimes lead to increased costs, especially when developers need to purge data frequently. While there are mechanisms in place to track and manage this, there is room for improvement in terms of optimizing data pausing and related processes. Enhancements in this area could help mitigate potential billing concerns and provide a more seamless experience for users."
"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."
"Although it's not always the case, the price can sometimes get expensive. This depends on a number of factors, such as how many services you are trying to integrate with Azure Monitor and how much storage they're consuming each month (for example, how large are the log files?)."
"When something goes down, we want the option to have automation in place to get it back up again as quickly as possible."
"I'd like the solution to do more around vulnerability assessment. It's lacking in the product right now."
"It might not have all of the capabilities we will need."
"The solution should have cross-connection or cross-communication between tech partners."
"n comparison to New Relic, which I've used before, it's a bit more complicated. It's not as easy to use. It also took some time to get it working. The implementation needs to be simpler."
"Its interface could be more accessible."
"I have a problem with Grafana in the area of documentation."
"There are not a lot of plugins for financial market monitoring."
"The main drawback is the necessity for endpoint monitoring."
"The solution must provide tutorials and guides."
"They should improve the functioning of its editing tool."
"I would like the ability to download my results into any format in order to share the information with my clients."
"I find issues with Grafana. For example, I am unable to open some services there. Then, we have to open ten different tabs to get it fixed. And it's annoying when there's something going on; we want to check Grafana, and it throws four different errors."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while Grafana is ranked 6th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 39 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while Grafana is rated 8.0. 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 Grafana writes "Agent-free with great dashboards and an active community". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Prometheus, Sentry and New Relic, whereas Grafana is most compared with New Relic, Sentry, Dynatrace, Elastic Observability and Honeycomb.io. See our Azure Monitor vs. Grafana 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.