We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and ITRS Geneos 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 is a cost-effective and easy-to-use solution that integrates well with other Microsoft technologies. It is highly recommended due to its lower cost, ease of configuration and maintenance, and integration capabilities. On the other hand, while ITRS Geneos is highly customizable and flexible, it lacks thread-level monitoring and requires a complex initial setup that may require direct onsite support for several weeks. It may also be too expensive for non-banking and non-finance industries. Azure Monitor is a more affordable and user-friendly option for developers who want to integrate with Visual Studio and monitor cloud resources across multiple subscriptions, making it the preferred 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."
"Azure Monitor is useful because of the useful application insights and telemetry, such as metrics and logs."
"Azure Monitor is really just a source for Dynatrace. It's just collecting data and monitoring the environment and the infrastructure. It is fairly good at that."
"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."
"It has good troubleshooting features."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the alert system, which can be set according to our metrics. The integration is smooth."
"It is a move-in powerful feature compared to other market-leading tools."
"The most valuable feature is that it ensures our servers are up."
"The ability to build integrations to tools that are not monitored out of the box is the most valuable feature."
"The Netprobe is so lightweight compared to the agents that most monitoring tools use. It's really superior to the competition. The agent that is used by almost every competitive tool takes a lot more system resources. It's slower and it requires a greater effort and more compromises in terms of security to install on the monitored servers. With Geneos, because it lives outside the code, it is far easier and far less taxing on the monitored systems."
"Custom script toolkits"
"The solution's log monitoring and alerting mechanisms are very user-friendly and easy to plug and play."
"ITRS uses SNMP to communicate with our devices as well as SNMP net probes installed on our servers."
"The remarkable feature of Geneos is the dashboard. Geneos' flexible dashboard sets it apart from other monitoring tools. Other solutions have limitations in their dashboard design and can't be customized as much. The Geneos dashboard allows unlimited creativity."
"It enables us to monitor application processes, to do log-monitoring on a 24/7 basis, to do server-level monitoring - all the hardware parameters - as well as monitor connectivity across applications to the interfaces."
"It's also easy to implement. The implementation of Geneos is very easy and interesting. It's not complicated. It's very quick to implement. The installation is very easy. There are many topics about ITRS Geneos that explain more about the features of the function of Geneos."
"This solution could be improved with more out-of-the-box functionalities and artificial intelligence to complete event correlation."
"have used multiple products like Webex and PRTG. Some features could be added. Azure Monitor should add SMS and APIs. We have very limited access to Azure Monitor. I usually get alerts on my phone when they are integrated with Slack. I am not always available, but my team is. Sometimes, I am traveling and don't have access to my email, but I have Slack and other third-party projects that send me instant messages if a sensor goes down."
"In my opinion, they should improve the overall user experience, especially when it comes to indexing and searching collective logs."
"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."
"Azure Monitor's integration with applications could be improved."
"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."
"In terms of pricing, Azure Monitor's billing based on data size can sometimes lead to increased costs, especially when developers need to purge data frequently. While there are mechanisms in place to track and manage this, there is room for improvement in terms of optimizing data pausing and related processes. Enhancements in this area could help mitigate potential billing concerns and provide a more seamless experience for users."
"The solution should have cross-connection or cross-communication between tech partners."
"ITRS Geneos cloud monitoring is very weak and can use improvement."
"Mobile phone integration is probably not as rich as it could be."
"I would also like to see suggested guidelines to accomplish a monitoring task. The issue is that ITRS is so flexible that there is more than one way to complete a task, each with benefits and disadvantages."
"A lightweight version which could host more than 100 gateways, as we can see slowness while loading all our gateways."
"The deployment method for upgrading is a bit tricky. It takes a little bit of manual effort. If that could be a bit more automated, it would help us a lot."
"The ITA, the post-incident analytics, could be improved."
"One thing that could be improved in terms of rapid scaling would be more ability to clone aspects of an implementation. It seems like there are opportunities in this area, where we have repetitive tasks to do when it comes to implementing things on new servers or on new gateways. It would be great if there was an easy way to clone something that had already been done."
"I would really like to see something from the Geneos side to set up automated reporting from ITRS. We have to send reporting to management every day. To do that we have to check the dashboard and then we have to report whether everything is fine or not. In the future, I want something, some reporting kind of feature in ITRS, where it can collect all the data and mention what is green, what is amber, what is red in a report."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while ITRS Geneos is ranked 11th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 57 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while ITRS Geneos is rated 8.2. 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 ITRS Geneos writes "The flexible dashboard sets it apart from competing tools, but it's costly and lacks scalability". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Grafana, whereas ITRS Geneos is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Grafana, Prometheus and Datadog. See our Azure Monitor vs. ITRS Geneos 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.
