We performed a comparison between AppDynamics and Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Google Cloud's operations suite is the preferred choice over AppDynamics due to its popular monitoring feature, reliable logging and tracing, and easy-to-use interface. Users recommend enhancements in additional metrics and tools, stability, and automation. The technical support is highly regarded and the setup process is generally simple.
"AppDynamics makes it much easier for us to detect problems or issues before they become problems. We have alerting on all of our business transactions."
"It helped to find quick solutions for specific business transactions."
"This solution not only provides answers but also provides sensor data. This allows us to quickly resolve issues that developers may take a long time to solve."
"Despite dozens of deployments across hundreds of applications- we have yet to see a case where AD is negatively impacting application execution or functionality."
"That visual representation’s been really good, also the overhead that AppDynamics creates is quite small. We've tried Dynatrace in the past. Some of the applications didn't work as well with Dynatrace."
"The ability to check parameters for microservice applications is most valuable. It is important for me. I can manually create new business transactions for applications and individually monitor business transactions. I can also use a lot of extensions. It has a lot of extensions to monitor other third-party applications, such as NoSQL applications, memory cache applications, Kafka applications, and Couchbase applications. It is very useful. We are also using the end-user monitoring site to follow all end-user activities. It is important for us to check the errors on the customer site."
"I have found the main feature of the solution to be its ability to analyze an application's code to see where there are issues. Additionally, it is easy to use and configure."
"It reduces the time to resolve issues and requires less manpower."
"The cloud login enables us to get our logs from the different platforms that we currently use."
"Google's technical support is very good."
"We find the solution to be stable."
"It's easy to use."
"Provides visibility into the performance uptime."
"The features that I have found most valuable are its graphs - if I need any statistics, in Kubernetes or Kong level or VPN level, I can quickly get the reports."
"Our company has a corporate account for Google Cloud and so our systems and clusters integrate really well."
"The most valuable feature is the multi-cloud integration, where there is support for both GCP and AWS."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pros →
"Sometimes, it is hard to navigate through and find if something is wrong or figure out where an error stemmed from."
"It would help to maybe have a more graphical interface and more user-friendly graphics."
"I’d like to see better out-of-the-box visual reporting so that we can roll this up to management."
"I would like them to change their business model for scalability to accommodate growing companies. The business model should be more flexible."
"AppDynamics scaled well up to around 3,000 agents. The performance deteriorated after that, while Dynatrace could support more than 10,000 agents. We were surprised that AppDynamics' scalability is not so good."
"Its resiliency can be improved. We're told that the best we can do with an on-prem solution is to have a hot standby that requires a manual switchover. So, it is a do-it-yourself Ikea model of maintaining data consistency between two servers, without having low balance or failover considerations for an on-prem solution."
"There are too many installers available for this solution."
"They are using Flash for their website, which is very slow. We had hoped the website would be much faster to use, and that is definitely what we want to see."
"It is difficult to estimate in advance how much something is going to cost."
"The logging functionality could be better."
"It could be even more automated."
"While we are satisfied with the overall performance, in certain cases we must add additional metrics and additional tools like Grafana and Dynatrace."
"It could be more stable."
"The product provides minimal metrics that are insufficient."
"Lacking sufficient operations documentation."
"This solution could be improved if it offered the ability to analyze charts, such as a solution like Kibana."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Cons →
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pricing and Cost Advice →
AppDynamics is ranked 5th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 153 reviews while Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is ranked 24th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 9 reviews. AppDynamics is rated 8.2, while Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of AppDynamics writes "Very good real-time monitoring capabilities, deep problem diagnosis, and transaction mapping". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) writes "Good logging and tracing but does need more profiling capabilities". AppDynamics is most compared with Dynatrace, Elastic Observability, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic, whereas Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is most compared with AWS X-Ray, Datadog, Azure Monitor, Amazon CloudWatch and Grafana. See our AppDynamics vs. Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) 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.
