We performed a comparison between Azure Cost Management and Opsview based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Microsoft, VMware and others in Cloud Cost Management."It is easy to log in, and everything is graphical so that you can build on the published resources."
"It encompasses a multitude of specialized services, each with its associated costs and considerations."
"The most valuable features of Azure Cost Management are the ability to set standards or tagging policies and initiatives. You can achieve higher cost optimization."
"The solution helps us diagnose and understand why some resources cost more so that we can fine-tune and reduce the cost."
"I like the granularity of the tools."
"The advisor recommendations feature is the most valuable feature. It helps set your environment in a clean state."
"The product provides visibility into what we are consuming."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Cost Management is its way of segregating accounts based on resources."
"We use this solution for internal monitoring our own cloud platform because we are a public cloud provider. We also use it for monitoring purposes on behalf of our clients."
"It's a good solution. It covers all aspects of monitoring purposes."
"The most valuable feature of Opsview is the ability to clone the services when you're monitoring something out of the test setup."
"I am satisfied with the overall product since it works well…It is a stable solution."
"What was very compelling about OpsView was that we could dial out the noise and have meaningful and actionable alerts."
"All the offers should be on the console. You shouldn't need to select from different tabs."
"The solution's technical support should be faster, more knowledgeable, and customer-friendly."
"The forecasting model can improve Azure Cost Management."
"I would like to see some features included for costing and more information about the components of deployment. Sometimes, it's very difficult to match the component with the solution because the descriptions are not very clear."
"We have encountered delays in support."
"Stability is an area in the solution that lacks in certain areas. So, it needs to be improved."
"The solution needs an automated dashboard and better reporting."
"What would make Azure Cost Management better is a more flexible GUI that would allow users to provide more input. Another area for improvement in the solution is its reporting. The report it provides should be easy to understand."
"In a future release, we would like to have Observ for AI. Any AI and intelligence it can add to the monitoring is obviously beneficial. We would also like to have automated callouts."
"Some of the graphics on Opsview could be improved."
"Maybe the graphical representation can be improved. It can be enhanced for better visualization. It could be a little better. And the graph center can be improved."
"Customized reporting can be improved."
"Pricing and a few certain aspects in the solution needs to be improved."
Azure Cost Management is ranked 2nd in Cloud Cost Management with 41 reviews while Opsview is ranked 12th in Server Monitoring with 24 reviews. Azure Cost Management is rated 8.0, while Opsview is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Cost Management writes "A good, but limited cost information solution with strong analytics but requiring more flexibility in its reporting functionality". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Opsview writes "Responsive and easy to customize alerts for, while being priced similarly to its competition". Azure Cost Management is most compared with IBM Turbonomic, VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth, AWS Savings Plans, Cloudability and Zabbix, whereas Opsview is most compared with OP5 Monitor, Zabbix, Nagios XI, Instana Infrastructure Monitoring and SCOM.
We monitor all Cloud Cost Management 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.