We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and IBM Application Performance Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The tools for logs and metrics are pretty good and easy to use."
"It is a robust, stable product."
"The solution has tons of valuable features."
"A product that is well-integrated for monitoring Microsoft Azure."
"For me, the best feature is the log analysis with Azure Monitor's Log Analytics. Without being able to analyze the logs of all the activities that affect the performance of a machine, your monitoring effectiveness will be severely limited."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the alert system, which can be set according to our metrics. The integration is smooth."
"It has good troubleshooting features."
"The upside to the solution is if you are working in a Microsoft or Azure environment, it makes things easier."
"The initial setup was straightforward and took minimal effort."
"The transaction tracking feature from IBM is the most important feature for us. It is something that provides a terrific value for us and our clients. It has a lot of data sources and agents that are collectors. It is also stable."
"The most valuable feature is the breakdown that it provides, such as a description of the fields for a particular transaction."
"I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten."
"Because we have partnerships with other partners, I can share a bit about what I've noticed with IBM APM compared to other vendor solutions. Specifically, with IBM, the visibility into detailed process information is more tangible. On the OS level, APM displays all processes (or the top 10 processes) that are consuming CPU or resident memory. This is the most important thing that is not always available with other vendors."
"IBM Application Performance Management helped us increased our response time by 80% and cost 60% less."
"It's easy to use."
"Automation related to gathering metrics from more applications could be improved."
"Integration with third-party tools from other vendors than Azure is more time-consuming"
"The default interface should be improved."
"This solution could be improved with more out-of-the-box functionalities and artificial intelligence to complete event correlation."
"The biggest one is probably just the user interface. There could be more advanced logging at the database level. They can also improve their query builder to allow you to search for things better, but I last used it about a year ago. They might have already changed a ton of things in the newer versions."
"This solution has fewer features than some of its competitors, so adding more features to it would make it better."
"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."
"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."
"The demo that was provided to us is not working very well. At times, there are errors."
"Technical support can be slow and needs improvement."
"Its web user interface is a little bit old in comparison to other solutions, such as New Relic, and it should be improved. Its scalability and technical support should also be improved. Currently, it is scalable, but only in a vertical way. They provide good technical support, but the initial steps for a new case can be improved to fasten the resolution process."
"It's still missing some platforms. For example, if you look to applications itself, it is missing the interface."
"They should focus on potentially enhancing the dashboard to make it more contemporary and adding some customization options. Furthermore, there might be room for improvement in the pricing policy."
"With APM, we noticed that the agent can cause a lot of issues for the application, making the agent very unreliable. Many issues are happening, and we've had to discuss it with support to try and get a fix. It affects application availability, and sometimes actions fail because of the agent, degrading the performance of the application."
"The stability is not great and should be better."
More IBM Application Performance Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 45 reviews while IBM Application Performance Management is ranked 54th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 7 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while IBM Application Performance Management is rated 6.4. 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 IBM Application Performance Management writes "A multi-functional solution but has poor stability and performance-related issues". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Grafana, whereas IBM Application Performance Management is most compared with Instana Dynamic APM, Dynatrace, BMC Compuware Strobe, IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager and AppDynamics. See our Azure Monitor vs. IBM Application Performance Management 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.