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."
"It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale."
"The solution very easily integrates with Azure services and in one click you can monitor your resource."
"Technical support is good and helpful...The initial setup is easy."
"Azure Monitor is a very easy-to-use product in the cloud environment."
"Good load and metrics gathering and very good analysis."
"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."
"You can scale the product."
"The solution is great for virtualization and preparing the infrastructure in Tanzu to test products. It's very fast and has good visibility."
"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."
"This solution allows me to have true visibility for any metrics when it comes to my cloud, and private."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are its ease of use and its ease of implementation."
"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."
"No issues with stability."
"The features I find most valuable is the querying and alerting capabilities."
"People are very pleased with the implementation."
"They need to work on a more hybrid deployment that will allow us to monitor local on-premise deployments and connect to different systems. I would like to see more integration."
"As a younger product it still has room for feature improvement and enhancement."
"I'd like the solution to do more around vulnerability assessment. It's lacking in the product right now."
"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."
"The troubleshooting logs need improvement. There should be some improvement there. I have a hard time finding the right logs at the right times whenever there is an issue occurring."
"There is room for improvement in stability."
"When something goes down, we want the option to have automation in place to get it back up again as quickly as possible."
"Automation related to gathering metrics from more applications could be improved."
"The main problem I have is that the license cost is very high."
"The documentation and integration with Kubernetes could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"Its billing model is consumption-based. I understand the consumption-based model, but it is not necessarily easy to estimate and guess how many points or how much we are going to consume on a specific application up until we get to that point. So, for us, it would be helpful to have more insights or predictability into what we can expect from a cost perspective if we are starting to use specific features. This can potentially also drive our consumption a bit more."
"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 initial setup should be easier and more seamless."
"The implementation is a long process that should be improved."
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 Dynatrace, Grafana, Datadog, Zabbix and Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE. 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.