We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and OpenText Real User Monitoring based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Datadog, Dynatrace, New Relic and others in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability."The solution is quite stable."
"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."
"It's a Microsoft native tool, so it works well with other Microsoft technologies, which is predominantly what our customer end-user base is."
"The most valuable feature is that it ensures our servers are up."
"Provides an overview and high-level information."
"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."
"We like this searchability and availability of the data."
"The technical support is good at resolving issues."
"Real User Monitor has improved our productivity."
"The Real User Monitor, with its transaction and synthetic transaction monitoring, is the typical classic in APM cases when the customer would like to do transaction monitoring. Micro Focus scores better where the underlying infrastructure management is also covered by Micro Focus tools."
"The most useful feature of this solution is tracking. When the application's traffic has been monitored it is taken from that particular application and analyzed. It is then given a live session of that particular user. For example, if you are using your bank application to do some kind of transaction, everything that you do can be tracked by that application."
"The reporting feature is good for us."
"The most valuable feature is application performance monitoring."
"Very easy to implement."
"They need to work with other cloud providers - not just Azure."
"This solution could be improved with more out-of-the-box functionalities and artificial intelligence to complete event correlation."
"The solution needs better monitoring. It requires better log controls."
"The monitoring of Kubernetes clusters needs improvement to be on par with competitors."
"Azure Monitor is not user-friendly, and the interface is not exciting. Switching between the dashboards is not easy."
"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."
"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."
"Azure Monitor could improve network performance monitoring and make it more advanced."
"This technology is considered to be older."
"Real User Monitor needs to cover more protocols to provide more in-depth information. It could also be better at monitoring voice-related traffic. There is currently no visibility in that channel."
"We would like to see support for non-Windows environments."
"One area to improve is the user interface, of course. The second one is their R&D has virtually stopped building a product roadmap."
"Some issues with login errors."
"When we want to monitor our encrypted traffic, this product doesn't work because our cipher is not supported."
"Everybody is moving away from traffic and installing agents on the application to do the job, but Micro Focus is using traditional ways to collect the traffic. They should change their architecture completely."
More OpenText Real User Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while OpenText Real User Monitoring is ranked 45th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 8 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while OpenText Real User Monitoring is rated 6.2. 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 OpenText Real User Monitoring writes "The reports and metrics we collect help us to improve our services". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Prometheus, Sentry and Grafana, whereas OpenText Real User Monitoring is most compared with AppDynamics, Dynatrace, Honeycomb.io and VMware Aria Operations for Applications.
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.
