We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Performance Management (APM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."In the last company where I worked about a year ago, it looked very simple."
"Log analytics and log queries are the most valuable features of Azure Monitor."
"For me, the best feature is the log analysis with Azure Monitor's Log Analytics. Without being able to analyze the logs of all the activities that affect the performance of a machine, your monitoring effectiveness will be severely limited."
"Azure Monitor's best features are its graphs and charts, the different visibility options, and reporting."
"It is a robust, stable product."
"Provides an overview and high-level information."
"Technical support is good and helpful...The initial setup is easy."
"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."
"Our company has a corporate account for Google Cloud and so our systems and clusters integrate really well."
"We find the solution to be stable."
"Google's technical support is very good."
"I like the monitoring feature."
"It's easy to use."
"The cloud login enables us to get our logs from the different platforms that we currently use."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pros →
"Azure Monitor's integration with applications could be improved."
"Lacks information including details related to where problems lie."
"They need to work with other cloud providers - not just Azure."
"The solution needs better monitoring. It requires better log controls."
"We encounter some difficulties in monitoring the operating system on its own."
"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 should include advanced logging on the database level in the Azure pool."
"The scalability could be improved as there are some limitations."
"This solution could be improved if it offered the ability to analyze charts, such as a solution like Kibana."
"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 logging functionality could be better."
"The product provides minimal metrics that are insufficient."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Cons →
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Management (APM) with 25 reviews while Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is ranked 21st in Application Performance Management (APM) with 6 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "Helps us test the performance and efficiency of cloud applications; good log analysis". 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". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security, Dynatrace, New Relic and SolarWinds Pingdom, whereas Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is most compared with AWS X-Ray, Datadog, New Relic, Splunk Enterprise Security and Grafana. See our Azure Monitor vs. Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) report.
See our list of best Application Performance Management (APM) vendors.
We monitor all Application Performance Management (APM) 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.
