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.
"The dashboard allows us to easily track various metrics and quickly understand the overall health of our system."
"Among the valuable features of this solution, Application Insights stands out as one of the most significant. It provides insights into application performance and helps identify issues and bottlenecks."
"Azure Monitor is a very easy-to-use product in the cloud environment."
"Azure Monitor gives us the observability to check everything that we have in the cloud."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the alert system, which can be set according to our metrics. The integration is smooth."
"The solution very easily integrates with Azure services and in one click you can monitor your resource."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The product has connectors to many services."
"The tool's most valuable feature is centralized logging. Elastic Common Search helps us to search for the logs across the organization."
"It has always been a stable solution."
"Machine learning is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"It's easy to deploy, and it's very flexible."
"We can view and connect different sources to the dashboard using it."
"For full stack observability, Elastic is the best tool compared with any other tool ."
"The solution has been stable in our usage."
"They should include advanced logging on the database level in the Azure pool."
"Automation related to gathering metrics from more applications could be improved."
"The process of implementation needs to be easier."
"I would like more transparency when we use the solution with another environment, like on-premises, or on another cloud environment, like AWS or GCP."
"The query builder could be better. In comparison to other monitoring tools, in order to use Azure Monitor, your engineers need to have KQL experience. If they don't, it's not intuitive as a system."
"When something goes down, we want the option to have automation in place to get it back up again as quickly as possible."
"Integration with third-party tools from other vendors than Azure is more time-consuming"
"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."
"Elastic Observability is difficult to use. There are only three options for customization but this can be difficult for our use case. We do not have other options to choose the metrics shown, such as CPU or memory usage."
"The auto-discovery isn't nearly as good. That's a big portion of it. When you drop the agent onto the JVM and you're trying to figure things out, having to go through and manually do all that is cumbersome."
"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 interface could be improved."
"Elastic Observability needs to improve the retrieval of logs and metrics from all the instances."
"Elastic Observability is reactive rather than proactive. It should act as an ITSM tool and be able to create tickets and alerts on Jira."
"Elastic Observability needs to have better standardization, logging, and schema."
"They need more skills in the market. There are not enough skills in the market. It is not pervasive enough on the market, in my opinion. In other words, there isn't a big enough user base."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 45 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, Sentry, AppDynamics and Grafana. 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.