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

Azure Monitor vs OpenText Real User Monitoring 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

Azure Monitor
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
7th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Monitoring Software (3rd)
OpenText Real User Monitoring
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
42nd
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Azure Monitor is 3.3%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Real User Monitoring is 0.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Azure Monitor3.3%
OpenText Real User Monitoring0.6%
Other96.1%
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

Andy Rabern - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant at a outsourcing company with 201-500 employees
Telemetry insights have improved how I track user behavior and application performance daily
I feel Azure Monitor does a fair job. I do feel it is not a streaming service in my opinion. There are advantages to having stream messaging and logging on that level. But for what it is, I feel it does well. My perspective is more based on an Application Insights agent running on a service or an app service and sending the telemetry via the agent, and also doing the filtering of telemetry at the agent level so you are not having a ton of telemetry. I believe Azure Monitor does pretty much the same thing. I have also used tools such as New Relic, and New Relic is a much more robust tool, but that is a different product and you are going to pay for that. It is a different offering altogether. The subscription that we had at the time allowed for a couple gigabytes of telemetry during the month, and I believe that telemetry only lives for about two months. You have to experiment with it to see how much you want to pay. I was not really involved in the pricing. It was more along the lines of we were running up against our limits in terms of the amount of free telemetry or telemetry that we get with our subscription, and so we either needed to scale back or turn specific telemetry types off or do some more sampling. It is nice that those capabilities are there so that you can reduce the amount of telemetry. I cannot really speak to pricing but I do believe that it is somewhat reasonable for Azure Monitor. New Relic is pretty expensive, I believe.
YA
Sr. Solution Architect, Project Manager at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
User-level monitoring with near-real-time analytics boosts service availability
The use case is about user-level monitoring and the availability of a service for a user. It's about whether the service is available, its performance, and the type of errors a user is receiving, from a user perspective The functions that Real User Monitor is intended for, which is to provide the…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution has tons of valuable features."
"The solution very easily integrates with Azure services and in one click you can monitor your resource."
"The solution works well overall. It's easy to implement and simple to use."
"It has good troubleshooting features."
"The most valuable feature is that it ensures our servers are up."
"It is a move-in powerful feature compared to other market-leading tools."
"It is a robust, stable product."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The most valuable feature is application performance monitoring."
"Real User Monitoring tools help proactively identify problems before they become critical by monitoring thresholds. There is a threshold and an SOA threshold."
"Very easy to implement."
"With the solution, you can easily access any issues in your infrastructure."
"The reporting feature is good for us."
"The technical support is good at resolving issues."
"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."
"It offers near-real-time analytics, which is helpful."
 

Cons

"The monitoring of Kubernetes clusters needs improvement to be on par with competitors."
"The solution should have cross-connection or cross-communication between tech partners."
"Lacks information including details related to where problems lie."
"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."
"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."
"The process of implementation needs to be easier."
"This solution could be improved with more out-of-the-box functionalities and artificial intelligence to complete event correlation."
"We would like to see support for non-Windows environments."
"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."
"One area to improve is the user interface, of course. The second one is their R&D has virtually stopped building a product roadmap."
"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."
"This technology is considered to be older."
"Some issues with login errors."
"The diagnostics perspective, particularly in terms of the root cause analysis of failures, should be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Azure Monitor is cheaper compared to other third-party monitoring tools."
"Azure Monitor is a low-priced solution, which is why it would work best on small-scale projects."
"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."
"The tool is expensive."
"I would rate Azure Monitor a two out of five for affordability."
"The cost of Azure Monitor application performance should be less expensive."
"It's a costly solution"
"The solution’s pricing depends on how much logs it collects."
"The price is approximately €30,000 ($35,500 USD) for the enterprise edition."
"Not expensive."
"If I compare with other vendors, other vendors are more expensive"
"Compared to other tools, OpenText Real User Monitoring is an expensive solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
880,745 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Performing Arts
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Hospitality Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise29
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise7
 

Questions from the Community

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?
I feel Azure Monitor does a fair job. I do feel it is not a streaming service in my opinion. There are advantages to having stream messaging and logging on that level. But for what it is, I feel it...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Real User Monitor?
The diagnostics perspective, particularly in terms of the root cause analysis of failures, should be improved. There needs to be more development in this area, as the support and the number of peop...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Real User Monitor?
The use case is about user-level monitoring and the availability of a service for a user. It's about whether the service is available, its performance, and the type of errors a user is receiving, f...
What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus Real User Monitor?
I rate the solution as nine. It is a good product. Everyone should have it as it is essential today, but choose the vendor accordingly. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Real User Monitor, Micro Focus RUM, HPE RUM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Rackspace, First Gas, Allscripts, ABB Group
Avea, Maccabi Healthcare Services, TEB
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Monitor vs. OpenText Real User Monitoring and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
880,745 professionals have used our research since 2012.