We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and Broadcom DX Application Performance Management 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 offers more customization, monitoring abilities for cloud resources across multiple subscriptions, and better troubleshooting features. It is also more flexible, low-cost, and integrates well with other Microsoft technologies. Additionally, it has received more positive feedback for initial setup and pricing. Despite both products having mixed reviews on customer service and support, Azure Monitor is considered a robust and stable product that scales well and offers a one-stop place to monitor all resources.
"One of the most useful aspects of this solution is the out-of-the-box functionality on all areas, especially on Application Insights, zero instrumentation, and artificial intelligence for event correlation."
"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 solution is quite stable."
"It is a move-in powerful feature compared to other market-leading tools."
"The most valuable feature is that it's stable. It hasn't crossed any thresholds."
"Azure Monitor gives us the observability to check everything that we have in the cloud."
"Recently, they have improved their integration with other resources, so we get even more robust data."
"The solution integrates well with the Microsoft platform."
"If there's something that you really need to get at that doesn't come out of the box, you can pretty easily put together some custom metrics and get those in place."
"I found the solution's end-to-end analysis and flexibility most valuable."
"The executive dashboard we created gives a lot of visibility. There's no working on something for a little bit before someone knows."
"The deep-process instrumentation gave us an opportunity to understand application process performance in detail."
"Some of its valuable features include transaction traces, dashboards, and metric grouping to see combined data."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...there is a very easy way to deal with it by adding more servers to the application."
"We did the setup for a new datacenter, and that was pretty straightforward."
"It's a very stable product."
"The length of latency is terrible and needs to 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."
"Azure Monitor is not user-friendly, and the interface is not exciting. Switching between the dashboards is not easy."
"The monitoring of Kubernetes clusters needs improvement to be on par with competitors."
"There is room for improvement in stability."
"This solution could be improved with more out-of-the-box functionalities and artificial intelligence to complete event correlation."
"They need to work on a more hybrid deployment that will allow us to monitor local on-premise deployments and connect to different systems. I would like to see more integration."
"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."
"There is no auto flow diagram, and the alert mechanism is not as good when compared to other tools."
"Documentation needs to be centralized."
"The solution still needs the administrator of APM to know a lot more to configure and control everything. So it's a headache for the administrator to do the daily jobs."
"We enountered stability issues. They were mitigated by performance tuning within infrastructure."
"The upcoming changes for the deployment process of the agent will help a lot, in that others have gotten to that point first."
"Broadcom DX Application Performance Management could improve its supportability to the current technologies and the end-to-end correlation feature should be done automatically without custom configurations. Additionally, there should not be any configuration changes to the client-side when deploying the solution."
"Very often, we use tools such as Kibana or Jaspersoft for dashboards and reporting on CA APM data because CA APM’s old interfaces do not reflect well in modern displays, compared to those new tools."
"User Experience is a BIG one. Integration of all of APM components into one swift deployment."
More Broadcom DX Application Performance Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is ranked 25th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 161 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is rated 8.0. 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 Broadcom DX Application Performance Management writes "Provides efficiency in migration and DAW but requires a high level of administrator knowledge for configuration". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Prometheus, Sentry and Grafana, whereas Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, VMware Aria Operations for Applications, BMC TrueSight Operations Management and New Relic. See our Azure Monitor vs. Broadcom DX Application Performance Management 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.
