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

AWS Auto Scaling 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

AWS Auto Scaling
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
15th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Azure Monitor
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
5th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
55
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Monitoring Software (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of AWS Auto Scaling is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Azure Monitor is 6.7%, down from 8.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

Mbula Mboma - PeerSpot reviewer
Boosts deployment efficiency with seamless automatic scaling capabilities
My primary use case for Auto Scaling is mainly to deploy applications at scale Auto Scaling has made the deployment of applications more efficient, allowing us to manage traffic and maintain performance as user counts increase. Auto Scaling is a cool feature that works well and its automatic…
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

"AWS Auto Scaling is very good for managing traffic and creating new instances when necessary."
"Our internal business applications are hosted in AWS Auto Scaling."
"It helps us to reduce the cost."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to select a minimum amount of active servers so that a new server automatically launches if one fails."
"I like the graphs provided by the tool."
"The tool gives you the flexibility to scale up and grow. The solution is also fast to deploy."
"AWS Auto Scaling is cost-effective and very useful for businesses."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it scales automatically without manual intervention based on the metrics we provide."
"A product that is well-integrated for monitoring Microsoft Azure."
"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 very stable."
"The solution integrates well with the Microsoft platform."
"It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale."
"The solution very easily integrates with Azure services and in one click you can monitor your resource."
"It is a robust, stable product."
"Log analytics and log queries are the most valuable features of Azure Monitor."
 

Cons

"It requires a downtime before deploying the Auto Scaling group."
"The setup can be a bit complex in some situations."
"Setting up the configuration involves too much work for the cloud engineer."
"It is sometimes very critical to deploy on AWS since some servers are already running in the background. There are challenges for employees on how to deploy at a given time."
"In comparison to other public clouds, the product is costly."
"AWS Auto Scaling's documentation could be better."
"Flexibility in configuring the workload is missing in AWS Auto Scaling."
"The solution's infrastructure scalability and elasticity could be improved."
"The solution's monitoring feature has limitations for analyzing multiple metrics."
"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."
"n comparison to New Relic, which I've used before, it's a bit more complicated. It's not as easy to use. It also took some time to get it working. The implementation needs to be simpler."
"Azure Monitor is not user-friendly, and the interface is not exciting. Switching between the dashboards is not easy."
"Integration with third-party tools from other vendors than Azure is more time-consuming"
"If I contact the First Line Support, they seem disconnected and lack technical information."
"They can simplify the overall complexity since you have multiple data sources in the cloud for monitoring. It's quite simple, but there are so many portals. It takes time to work with it. If they could simplify the user configuration, that would be good."
"Using Azure Monitor and Azure Arc separately to monitor different environments can be complicated."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product has moderate pricing."
"The pricing is good. I have not had any customers that have complained about the price."
"AWS Auto Scaling's price is high."
"AWS Auto Scaling is an expensive solution."
"AWS Auto Scaling is a pay-per-use and pay-as-you-use service."
"The product is expensive."
"AWS Auto Scaling is a cheap solution."
"Its cost depends on the ingestion of the logs. It could go anywhere. For an out-of-the-box platform such as FrameFlow, you pay pretty much a fixed price and you get what you get, whereas, with something like Azure Monitor, you pay by the ingestion charge, so you can have one client who pays hardly anything for the same alerts, and another client pays loads and loads."
"It is a pay-as-you-go model. I find it very cost-effective."
"Azure Monitor's price is minimal to the point of being almost negligible."
"The product offers a pay-as-you-go model to users. The charges are to be paid according to the usage of the product."
"Azure Monitor is one of the more cost effective solutions on the market."
"Azure Monitor is cheaper compared to other third-party monitoring tools."
"The tool is expensive."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
857,162 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about AWS Auto Scaling?
The tool's most valuable feature is vertical auto-scaling, which is easy to use. However, most companies now prefer horizontal scaling. I set up the health check integration to monitor CPU usage. W...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for AWS Auto Scaling?
The pricing of Auto Scaling is medium range, neither high nor low.
What needs improvement with AWS Auto Scaling?
It is sometimes very critical to deploy on AWS since some servers are already running in the background. There are challenges for employees on how to deploy at a given time. It requires a downtime ...
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 primary challenge is the documentation. The major challenge that remains is the costing factor for the logs ingestion. The cost skyrockets once you start using it, and there are complaints that...
 

Also Known As

AWS Auto-Scaling
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Expedia, Intuit, Royal Dutch Shell, Brooks Brothers
Rackspace, First Gas, Allscripts, ABB Group
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Auto Scaling vs. Azure Monitor and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
857,162 professionals have used our research since 2012.