We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and Datadog based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Datadog finishes ahead of Azure Monitor. Users feel Datadog gives the best visibility, better integration, and helpful, timely support. The logs and error reporting are extremely useful to conduct analysis and root cause analysis. The setup, ease of use, and flexibility with dashboard creation and reporting are just some of the things that our users like best about Datadog.
"Azure Monitor is useful because of the useful application insights and telemetry, such as metrics and logs."
"Azure Monitor is very stable."
"The solution has tons of valuable features."
"Recently, they have improved their integration with other resources, so we get even more robust data."
"The feature that I found most valuable in Azure Monitor is its monitoring abilities. With Azure Monitor, you are able to monitor all of your cloud resources across multiple subscriptions in one dashboard and create solution-specific alerts that can trigger an email to the team responsible for that specific solution."
"Technical support is good and helpful...The initial setup is easy."
"It is a robust, stable product."
"The dashboard allows us to easily track various metrics and quickly understand the overall health of our system."
"I don't have to worry about upgrades with the AWS version."
"It provides more cloud data. They tend to just get the way a service would be designed on the cloud."
"We can handle debugging and find out why things are breaking in our applications."
"The observability on offer is the most useful aspect of the product."
"Datadog has given us near-live visibility across our entire cloud platform."
"We really like the charts and visualization."
"We have found that we're able to get in and out of troubleshooting issues much more rapidly, which in turn, of course, enables us to spend more time on our products."
"The solution is sufficiently stable."
"The monitoring of Kubernetes clusters needs improvement to be on par with competitors."
"There is room for improvement in stability."
"I'd like the solution to do more around vulnerability assessment. It's lacking in the product right now."
"It's really complex to retrieve or query the logs in Azure Monitor."
"The price could be lower but it is not a must."
"We cannot use AI services with the solution."
"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 are a lot of things that take more time to do, such as charting, alerting, and correlation of data, and things like that. Azure Monitor doesn't tell you why something happened. It just tells you that it happened. It should also have some type of AI. Environments and applications are becoming more and more complex every day with hundreds or thousands of microservices. Therefore, having to do a lot of the stuff manually takes a lot of time, and on top of that, troubleshooting issues takes a lot of time. The traditional method of troubleshooting doesn't really work for or apply to this environment we're in. So, having an AI-based system and the ability to automate deployments of your monitoring and configurations makes it much easier."
"The more tools that they can build that allow you to run AWX playbooks, or other similar fixes, would benefit clients greatly."
"Stability of the product has been a concern for us outside of the primary monitoring agents."
"Some of the interface is still confusing to use."
"It would also be nice if we had more insight into our own usage of Datadog (agents and custom metrics). They provide a usage page which does help, but it is not in real-time."
"I often have issues with the UI in my browser."
"Datadog lacks a deeper application-level insight. Their competitors had eclipsed them in offering ET functionality that was important to us. That's why we stopped using it and switched to New Relic. Datadog's price is also high."
"I'm not sure what kind of features are in the roadmap right now, but I encourage the development of features for defining your organization, and allowing the visibility of what kind of metrics you can get. Those features would be really useful for us."
"We would like to see some versioning system for the Synthetic Tests so that we could have a backup of our tests since they are time-consuming to make and very easy to damage in a moment of error."
Azure Monitor is ranked 5th in Cloud Monitoring Software with 44 reviews while Datadog is ranked 1st in Cloud Monitoring Software with 137 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while Datadog is rated 8.6. 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 Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". Azure Monitor is most compared with Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus, Grafana and New Relic, whereas Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, New Relic, AWS X-Ray, Elastic Observability and AppDynamics. See our Azure Monitor vs. Datadog report.
See our list of best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors and best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Monitoring Software 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.