We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and VMware Tanzu Observability by Wavefront based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: VMware Tanzu Observability by Wavefront is favored over Azure Monitor because of its ease of deployment, integration with multiple solutions, support for container platforms like Kubernetes, and real-time visibility into complex cloud-native environments. Azure Monitor is praised for its application insights and telemetry, and low-cost pricing, but needs improvement in visualization, integration with third-party services, and out-of-the-box functionalities.
"The solution works well overall. It's easy to implement and simple to use."
"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."
"Azure Monitor gives us the observability to check everything that we have in the cloud."
"The solution is quite stable."
"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 integrates well with the Microsoft platform."
"Log analytics and log queries are the most valuable features of Azure Monitor."
"It is a move-in powerful feature compared to other market-leading tools."
"VMware comes with a support team, and if you have trouble, you can easily create a ticket, and VMware will help you. Therefore, the best aspect is the support."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are its ease of use and its ease of implementation."
"The solution is great for virtualization and preparing the infrastructure in Tanzu to test products. It's very fast and has good visibility."
"No issues with stability."
"This solution allows me to have true visibility for any metrics when it comes to my cloud, and private."
"For us, the ease of deployment in combination with TMZ was the most important part because we don't have to manually deploy a complex monitoring solution. We can more or less do that with the click of a button, and we are not dependent on the developers to provide us with all the necessary features and functions to make that work. We can just deploy it on a workload cluster and monitor at least a good part of the workload. If we want to go into detail, we clearly need to make changes, but for a good part of application monitoring, it gives us good insights."
"People are very pleased with the implementation."
"Tanzu itself, integrated with multiple solutions, bestows support and security upon a container platform, especially when it comes to managing open-source container platforms such as Kubernetes."
"We encounter some difficulties in monitoring the operating system on its own."
"They should include advanced logging on the database level in the Azure pool."
"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?)."
"Azure Monitor could improve network performance monitoring and make it more advanced."
"There is room for improvement in stability."
"They can simplify the overall complexity since you have multiple data sources in the cloud for monitoring. It's quite simple, but there are so many portals. It takes time to work with it. If they could simplify the user configuration, that would be good."
"As a younger product it still has room for feature improvement and enhancement."
"Azure Monitor's integration with applications could be improved."
"In the new version, I would love to see more prediction capabilities. It would be great if one could see the alerts get a little more enriched with information and become more human-friendly instead of the technical stuff that they put in there. I think those would be really awesome outcomes to get."
"I would like to see integration with Kubernetes cluster and APIs so that you can manage the entire stack."
"The initial setup should be easier and more seamless."
"It could use a URL document server. Everything in the market is moving towards automation and everybody's looking for the single click operations as well relational data locality."
"The implementation is a long process that should be improved."
"The documentation and integration with Kubernetes could be improved."
"The main problem I have is that the license cost is very high."
"They could make it more easy to plug-in data so that a nontechnical person will be able to use it, like accountants or finance people. That way they don't have to ask us."
More VMware Aria Operations for Applications Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while VMware Aria Operations for Applications is ranked 32nd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 9 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while VMware Aria Operations for Applications is rated 7.6. 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 VMware Aria Operations for Applications writes "Easy to deploy, worth the money, and helpful for uptime monitoring and performance insights". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Prometheus, Sentry and Grafana, whereas VMware Aria Operations for Applications is most compared with Grafana, Dynatrace, Datadog, Zabbix and Elastic Observability. See our Azure Monitor vs. VMware Aria Operations for Applications 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.
