We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and Broadcom DX Application Performance Management 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 offers more customization, monitoring abilities for cloud resources across multiple subscriptions, and better troubleshooting features. It is also more flexible, low-cost, and integrates well with other Microsoft technologies. Additionally, it has received more positive feedback for initial setup and pricing. Despite both products having mixed reviews on customer service and support, Azure Monitor is considered a robust and stable product that scales well and offers a one-stop place to monitor all resources.
"The solution's most valuable features are its ability to focus on delivery and maximizing the performance of applications and services."
"Azure Monitor's best features are its graphs and charts, the different visibility options, and reporting."
"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."
"The solution very easily integrates with Azure services and in one click you can monitor your resource."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"It is a move-in powerful feature compared to other market-leading tools."
"Data exporting is easy, and this tool works seamlessly with other solutions. It's a stable and low-priced solution."
"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."
"Stability is one of the strongest attributes of CA APM. It is very stable on all platforms."
"If we see something that we need to change or monitor, we can get it scripted pretty quickly."
"Users no longer need to depend upon the console for a compatible Java version. Now, users can directly learn the version, perform all their actions, and see all of those performance-related issues."
"JVM memory monitoring and connection pool monitoring are valuable features."
"Attribute decoration is a unique and very powerful feature. We can add meaningful meta information based on our internal demand."
"I found the solution's end-to-end analysis and flexibility most valuable."
"We are able to spot issues much quicker with the use of the out-of-the-box metrics given to us by CA. But we also develop that further with the use of the EPA Agent and expand what we can give and show the business by creating our own scripts. This has allowed us to develop our own self-monitoring and before anybody else sees the issue we are on hand to solve that as quickly as possible."
"Service maturity when you can retrieve the normal metrics for every major aspect of each module and delivering this info to the correct eyes."
"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 scalability could be improved as there are some limitations."
"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?)."
"Enhancing and reaching a level of detail that facilitates pinpointing and addressing issues at such a refined level within the application and database components would be helpful."
"Azure Monitor could improve network performance monitoring and make it more advanced."
"The monitoring of Kubernetes clusters needs improvement to be on par with competitors."
"They need to work with other cloud providers - not just Azure."
"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."
"A CA APM agent takes a lot of memory. That is one disadvantage. If you configure CA APM correctly it will still consume around 15 to 20 percent of memory."
"The product displays some graphics and sometimes we want to have some different metrics in the same graphic but it doesn't display in the same scale, so it's quite complicated to see the metrics. If the product would be able to manage a double scale, it would be perfect."
"The following need improvement: 1) Integration of third-party content into app maps (e.g. data coming from beats/elastic platform). 2) Support of new application server technologies, time to adopt new versions of them. 3) Dashboarding capabilities (as with all other vendors). 4) Application architecture of the central Enterprise Manager should be developed into a cloud native architecture. 5) Mitigation of SPOF – PostgreSQL database, behind Team Center."
"In order for the tool to be successful, at least in our organization, it will need to have more self-serve features for implementation, instrumentation, and then modification of metric data from the APM."
"The upcoming changes for the deployment process of the agent will help a lot, in that others have gotten to that point first."
"The APM SQL feature doesn't perform like we would like it to. I know that's a new feature with 10.5, so it may be one of those things that gets a little better, but it should run faster."
"We enountered stability issues. They were mitigated by performance tuning within infrastructure."
"With respect to SQL monitoring, it would be nice to have a little more information because it doesn't provide the full statement all of the time."
More Broadcom DX Application Performance Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is ranked 22nd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 161 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while Broadcom DX Application Performance Management 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 Broadcom DX Application Performance Management writes "Provides efficiency in migration and DAW but requires a high level of administrator knowledge for configuration". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Prometheus, Sentry and Grafana, whereas Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, BMC TrueSight Operations Management, VMware Aria Operations for Applications and New Relic. See our Azure Monitor vs. Broadcom DX 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.