"The monitoring so far has been good and we are happy with it."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to receive in-depth information about applications. It can detect a lot of important information."
"The most valuable feature is application monitoring."
"The breakdown of the response time of different components and getting in-depth details of the slow component are the most valuable features. It is easy to use, and it gets the job done."
"The simplicity of the dashboard is very good."
"It does everything we wanted it to do."
"We like the performance of the product."
"The VPN is one of the solution's most valuable features for us."
"It is a robust, stable product."
"Azure Monitor is very stable."
"The solution works well overall. It's easy to implement and simple to use."
"Azure Monitor is useful because of the useful application insights and telemetry, such as metrics and logs."
"Provides an overview and high-level information."
"You can scale the product."
"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 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 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 technical support is good at resolving issues."
"Very easy to implement."
"New Relic APM can improve the information when we dig deeper to check a problem. There should be more detailed information provided."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"I haven't come across any features that are lacking."
"How granular I could go down at looking at certain data, especially related to the operations, is limited."
"It would be nice if there were pre-made dashboards."
"New Relic APM could improve error debugging and the correlation with the logs. We are receiving some alerts or alarms but we need to correlate with the error log, but it is difficult if it is more than seven months retention period, it is hard to trace. We need this especially for getting historical information."
"The solution could improve by having more network monitoring features, such as for all the infrastructure."
"The older view is much better than the new view that they have. We'd like to go back to that previous version. The user interface just isn't as nice as it used to be."
"Currently, it seems it's complicated to get the correct information in terms of what to do and how things work."
"Azure Monitor could improve the visualization aspect and integrate better with other third-party services."
"There are a lot of things that take more time to do, such as charting, alerting, and correlation of data, and things like that. Azure Monitor doesn't tell you why something happened. It just tells you that it happened. It should also have some type of AI. Environments and applications are becoming more and more complex every day with hundreds or thousands of microservices. Therefore, having to do a lot of the stuff manually takes a lot of time, and on top of that, troubleshooting issues takes a lot of time. The traditional method of troubleshooting doesn't really work for or apply to this environment we're in. So, having an AI-based system and the ability to automate deployments of your monitoring and configurations makes it much easier."
"I'd like the solution to do more around vulnerability assessment. It's lacking in the product right now."
"Lacks information including details related to where problems lie."
"In my opinion, they should improve the overall user experience, especially when it comes to indexing and searching collective logs."
"Azure Monitor could improve network performance monitoring and make it more advanced."
"Setting up this solution is complex. It's also missing the functionality of assigning alerts."
"Some issues with login errors."
"When we want to monitor our encrypted traffic, this product doesn't work because our cipher is not supported."
"This technology is considered to be older."
"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 Micro Focus Real User Monitor Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 7th in Application Performance Management (APM) with 11 reviews while Micro Focus Real User Monitor is ranked 42nd in Application Performance Management (APM) with 4 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while Micro Focus Real User Monitor is rated 5.8. The top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "Low-priced and stable tool for data export and visualization, but has very few features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus Real User Monitor writes "An expensive product with an old design that needs to be more lightweight". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Splunk, Dynatrace, SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor and Google Stackdriver, whereas Micro Focus Real User Monitor is most compared with AppDynamics, Google Stackdriver, Dynatrace, VMware Tanzu Observability by Wavefront and SolarWinds AppOptics. See our Azure Monitor vs. Micro Focus Real User Monitor 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.
