Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Avada Software Infrared360 vs Azure Monitor comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Avada Software Infrared360
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
72nd
Average Rating
8.8
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (6th), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (13th), Server Monitoring (42nd)
Azure Monitor
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
6th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
55
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Monitoring Software (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Avada Software Infrared360 is 0.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Azure Monitor is 4.9%, down from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Azure Monitor4.9%
Avada Software Infrared3600.3%
Other94.8%
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

WK
Role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems
* We now have the possibility of getting a central perspective on all tenants. * We have defined access roles for developers. Therefore, they can 'read in' their queues on the development and testing stages. With special roles, they may also write. This improves our development and testing cycle. * For operative systems, we have restricted the access. Still, selected people can react if something is happening in the various BOQs.
Muhammad Usman Khawar - PeerSpot reviewer
Native integration simplifies monitoring but documentation and cost improvements are needed
The ease of access in Azure is significant since it's native to the platform and easy to integrate. It has no maintenance overhead, and users don't have to navigate to another portal to get their desired result. It's the handiness that it has, rather than the features. The interpretation from the logs and injection requires custom runbooks. While it's complex, many services provide native insights and workbooks. It does the basic job quite efficiently. They added new kinds of metrics with more integrations to send out metrics. They have even added support for third-party tools that can be integrated. Azure Monitor is working on improvements and becoming more mature. Azure Monitor is stable and scalable. Azure Monitor is evolving with new workbooks and dashboards.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It's what we use for monitoring our MQ system, so the features that they provide are just really, really good."
"Monitoring that ties into our incident management system"
"It has role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems."
"We have easily created use case testing harnesses for specific flows that incorporate various message types."
"The administration piece makes it very easy to do MQ administration. It gives us a lot more flexibility and capabilities."
"It allows non-technical users to inspect their individual components within the total infrastructure without disturbing other components and without bothering the technical teams."
"It has good troubleshooting features."
"The solution's most valuable features are its ability to focus on delivery and maximizing the performance of applications and services."
"It's a Microsoft native tool, so it works well with other Microsoft technologies, which is predominantly what our customer end-user base is."
"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."
"Azure Monitor's best features are its graphs and charts, the different visibility options, and reporting."
"The solution has tons of valuable features."
"What I like about Azure Monitor is that it performs well."
"The solution works well overall. It's easy to implement and simple to use."
 

Cons

"Some of the graphics in the interface could be improved. It's pretty basic. Some interfaces are not up to what you're used to seeing on other, more Windows-like tools."
"We desire a dashboard that could accumulate BOQ lengths per tenant on one screen for all tenants."
"We are still working with the FTE/MFT subscription monitoring and reporting functionality. That is an area in which we would like to see further development taking place."
"The UI can be cumbersome - but we are still using the Viper interface and we have not had the time to check out the Alloy interface which is supposed to be much improved."
"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic. The competing products have similar problems."
"One area where they could improve is with their documentation. Some sections are not up to date with new release information and providing additional samples in some areas would be very helpful."
"The default interface should be improved."
"I'd like the solution to do more around vulnerability assessment. It's lacking in the product right now."
"They should include advanced logging on the database level in the Azure pool."
"As a younger product it still has room for feature improvement and enhancement."
"If I contact the First Line Support, they seem disconnected and lack technical information."
"The onboarding process of certain assets and the overall UI can be improved in Azure Monitor"
"The cost skyrockets once you start using it, and there are complaints that the actual cost of the Kubernetes cluster was less than the cost they were incurring for Azure Monitor."
"Integration with third-party tools from other vendors than Azure is more time-consuming"
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Avada Software's licensing metric is very good because the license fees are based on the number of connections (which have not increased for us very much over the years) rather than the CPU processing power (which increases significantly whenever our hardware is upgraded) or the number of users (which has increased for us a lot since our original purchase)."
"Start small, then increase licensing later as per your demand."
"Our internal budget calculation model incorporates the pricing per endpoint for any new projects. However, as our footprint for distributed queue managers shrinks as part of our shared middleware hub deployment, the initial licensing and support costs have been reduced over the last five years."
"Because the licensing is at the QMGR level, you need to have at least a small cushion of licenses for occasional enterprise needs."
"My company is okay with the current pricing of the solution."
"I would rate Azure Monitor a two out of five for affordability."
"Customers of Azure Monitor must pay an amount that depends largely on how many services they need to integrate and the storage space required in terms of logs, etc. If they only have a few small services to monitor, the price won't be too high, but on the opposite side of the spectrum, it can certainly get pricey."
"The tool is expensive."
"It is a pay-as-you-go model. I find it very cost-effective."
"The solution’s pricing depends on how much logs it collects."
"The solution is expensive, but it is worth the price."
"Azure Monitor is a competitively priced solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
869,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
34%
Printing Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Performing Arts
7%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise29
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does Splunk compare with Azure Monitor?
Splunk handles a high amount of data very well. We use Splunk to capture information and as an aggregator for monitoring information from different sources. Splunk is very good at alerting us if we...
What do you like most about Azure Monitor?
Azure Monitor is a very easy-to-use product in the cloud environment.
What needs improvement with Azure Monitor?
The challenges with Azure Monitor are that it's initially complex to set up because you need multiple components. Azure Monitor is one thing, but within Azure Monitor, you need to bring Log Analyti...
 

Also Known As

Infrared360
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

USBank, Southwest Airlines, Visiting Nurse Services of New York, Aon Hewitt, Parker Hannifin,  Cantonal Bank of Zurich (ZKB), Hagemeyer NA, and many others
Rackspace, First Gas, Allscripts, ABB Group
Find out what your peers are saying about Avada Software Infrared360 vs. Azure Monitor and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.