We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and Elastic Observability 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 has better integration with Microsoft technologies, more out-of-the-box functionalities, lower cost, and better customer support. Elastic Observability is noted for its machine learning and custom development capabilities, but has a steep learning curve, lacks comprehensive visualization and metrics, and could improve pricing. Overall, Azure Monitor is seen as a more robust and stable product that offers a centralized location for resource monitoring.
"It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale."
"The feature that I found most valuable in Azure Monitor is its monitoring abilities. With Azure Monitor, you are able to monitor all of your cloud resources across multiple subscriptions in one dashboard and create solution-specific alerts that can trigger an email to the team responsible for that specific solution."
"The solution very easily integrates with Azure services and in one click you can monitor your resource."
"The most valuable feature is that it's stable. It hasn't crossed any thresholds."
"Azure Monitor is useful because of the useful application insights and telemetry, such as metrics and logs."
"Provides an overview and high-level information."
"Technical support is helpful."
"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."
"The Elastic User Interface framework lets us do custom development when needed. You need to have some Javascript knowledge. We need that knowledge to develop new custom tests."
"The solution is open-source and helps with back-end logging. It is also easy to handle."
"Good design and easy to use once implemented."
"The solution has been stable in our usage."
"The solution allows us to dig deep into data."
"Its diverse set of features available on the cloud is of significant importance."
"For full stack observability, Elastic is the best tool compared with any other tool ."
"Elastic APM has plenty of features, such as the Elastic server for Kibana and many additional plugins. It's a comprehensive tool when used as a logging platform."
"Azure Monitor could improve the visualization aspect and integrate better with other third-party services."
"Although it's not always the case, the price can sometimes get expensive. This depends on a number of factors, such as how many services you are trying to integrate with Azure Monitor and how much storage they're consuming each month (for example, how large are the log files?)."
"When something goes down, we want the option to have automation in place to get it back up again as quickly as possible."
"The solution should have cross-connection or cross-communication between tech partners."
"This solution could be improved with more out-of-the-box functionalities and artificial intelligence to complete event correlation."
"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 query builder could be better. In comparison to other monitoring tools, in order to use Azure Monitor, your engineers need to have KQL experience. If they don't, it's not intuitive as a system."
"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."
"The interface could be improved."
"Improving code insight related to infrastructure and network, particularly focusing on aspects such as firewalls, switches, routers, and testing would be beneficial."
"In the future, Elastic APM needs a portfolio iTool. They can provide an easy way to develop the custom UI for Kibana."
"The cost must be made more transparent."
"If we had some pre-defined templates for observability that we could start using right away after deploying it – instead of having to build or to change some of the dashboards – that would be helpful."
"The price is the only issue in the solution. It can be made better and cheaper."
"The auto-discovery isn't nearly as good. That's a big portion of it. When you drop the agent onto the JVM and you're trying to figure things out, having to go through and manually do all that is cumbersome."
"Elastic Observability is difficult to use. There are only three options for customization but this can be difficult for our use case. We do not have other options to choose the metrics shown, such as CPU or memory usage."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while Elastic Observability is ranked 7th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 22 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while Elastic Observability is rated 7.8. 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 Elastic Observability writes "The user interface framework lets us do custom development when needed. ". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Prometheus, Sentry and AWS X-Ray, whereas Elastic Observability is most compared with Dynatrace, New Relic, AppDynamics, Datadog and Grafana. See our Azure Monitor vs. Elastic Observability report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors and best Cloud Monitoring Software 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.