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

Azure Network Watcher vs LogRhythm NetMon comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 10, 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 Network Watcher
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
46th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
LogRhythm NetMon
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
56th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Azure Network Watcher is 0.4%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of LogRhythm NetMon is 0.3%, down from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

Emanuel Kjellin - PeerSpot reviewer
An affordable solution to block and analyze the situation with VPN troubleshooting feature
If Azure Network Monitor is part of the solution, it's a comprehensive tool. For example, during cloud migration, the workload on the cloud can be significant. However, the Ethernet solution is low cost and provides a fast return on investment. In larger scenarios, such as a major deployment, the return on investment might take three months to a year. The solution involves managing workloads, machine storage, and network modes.
KeithGalleros - PeerSpot reviewer
A solution providing visibility into all data traversing your network but needs to be more cost-efficient
The main concern is that LogRhythm has not improved NetMon but instead introduced a separate product, which many customers, including us, would prefer to be integrated into a single platform for easier management. I'd also like to see LogRhythm NetMon improve in terms of cost efficiency, especially regarding adding new products that may overlap in functionality. Specifically, I would appreciate enhanced detection and response capabilities directly integrated into NetMon to avoid needing additional rules or tools from LogRhythm. Regarding integration capabilities, I think NetMon's current agent-based approach is limiting. Integrating with protocols like Gflow and Netflow would be better, allowing seamless integration with our existing network equipment. This would solve the problem of agent-based restrictions and improve overall integration.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like the visibility."
"The solution is good for monitoring device behavior."
"The stability is very good. I rate it a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Network Watcher is the cloud-native application firewall. It is helpful for securing databases."
"We use the solution to monitor network services. It helps to capture any network issues."
"The most valuable features I have found are typology, visualization, and capture."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Network Watcher is using the gateways with the connections. The monitoring is useful for the logs and application insights into the data. The traffic filtering issues when it comes to deploying those applications are helpful."
"What I like most about Azure Network Watcher is that it's focused more on the architecture. I also like that it has a packet capture feature that tells you how the packet travels and whether it's exiting Azure, etc."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The protocols with which you see the traffic for a particular website that a client has in their environment, for example, are valuable. We can monitor whether the traffic is up to the mark or whether they need to add more bandwidth. Also, we can see if we're able to get real-time environment data as well. The customization dashboard is really good. LogRhythm NetMon has its own in-built dashboards which are helpful in guiding customization."
"The analytics feature is the most valuable feature."
"The initial setup is straightforward because we can deploy an open server."
"LogRhythm NetMon's most impressive feature is that it's a bundled package, so you're not just relying on monthly data; you get a six-month view for more comprehensive indicators of compromise. This dual approach is precious. We implement LogRhythm NetMon in our cybersecurity strategy mainly for compliance and correlation of network, user, and decision activities, particularly for network firewalls and access control."
"Visibility is a valuable feature, the ability to see even if the traffic is not going into the firewall"
"It has a very strong artificial intelligence engine."
"The most valuable feature is the log, which can be analyzed by our SIEM solution."
 

Cons

"Azure Network Watcher needs to have better documentation and it needs to capture information accurately."
"I still use Wireshark and Azure Network Watcher to get the required data. My team captures the traffic from Azure Network Watcher, downloads it, then imports that traffic into Wireshark to get more details on the number of hits and replies, for example. If you can do that on Azure Network Watcher and have Wireshark built-in, that would make Azure Network Watcher better. If Azure Network Watcher has that functionality where you won't need a third-party tool to get what you need, that would be helpful. I'm also expecting more from Azure Network Watcher. It's more complex than knowing how the IP flows from its source to the destination. The tool also needs more open-source features, such as having some built-in Wireshark that improves monitoring for customers. Sometimes, you encounter a VPN tunnel, network, or routing issue, but finding out more about the blockage is challenging. Is it one hundred percent an Azure issue? Is it a peer issue? You don't get complete information from Azure Network Watcher, so you must use other tools and depend on your strategies to resolve a specific issue. If more features could be added in the next release of Azure Network Watcher, specifically ones you can find on open-source tools, then that would be a plus point for the tool."
"Lacks sufficient security features."
"The initial setup and initial learning curve could be improved to be easier."
"Azure is good, however, the Fortinet GUI is more intuitive and I like it more than anything else."
"User experience could be improved."
"I would like to see in the future if we can troubleshoot as a firewall because it is equipment as a network player and some diagnostics."
"The initial setup and deployment could be improved to be simplified."
"Could use a topology diagram which would help get an exact visual."
"The training for this product is not very good and needs to be improved."
"Sometimes it's hard to find the network devices' self-audit logs."
"The platform's integration features often need to be improved."
"The main concern is that LogRhythm has not improved NetMon but instead introduced a separate product, which many customers, including us, would prefer to be integrated into a single platform for easier management."
"There is an issue with tunneling in relation to how the connectivity is established between the end devices and where NetMon is installed. On the console, I often observe that there's a difference of a few seconds or maybe a minute, and this lag time should not be there."
"Some of the automated tasks we can perform on QRadar cannot be performed on LogRhythm because the solution has limitations."
"I would like to see better integration with multiple products. Integration is not something that is readily available for most of the products."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Azure Network Watcher is a little bit expensive."
"Price-wise, I have no information on how much Azure Network Watcher costs."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
"The pricing is good. It's not too expensive."
"The product is expensive for smaller companies."
"NetMon's licensing costs about $85k per year, with some extra costs for support."
"The price of this solution is too high, so it should be made more practical and more valuable for the customer."
"Pricing is okay. There were some competitors that were extremely expensive and there were some which were really inexpensive but LogRhythm stayed in the middle of them."
"LogRhythm's licensing part is something that depends on the license you want since they offer it on a perpetual and subscription basis."
"I don't have visibility into the pricing of LogRhythm NetMon as it's handled through our commercial partnerships."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
9%
Real Estate/Law Firm
6%
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
19%
Insurance Company
11%
Government
11%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about LogRhythm NetMon?
It has a very strong artificial intelligence engine.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for LogRhythm NetMon?
I don't have visibility into the pricing of LogRhythm NetMon as it's handled through our commercial partnerships.
What needs improvement with LogRhythm NetMon?
The main concern is that LogRhythm has not improved NetMon but instead introduced a separate product, which many customers, including us, would prefer to be integrated into a single platform for ea...
 

Also Known As

No data available
LogRhythm Network Monitor
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Sera-Brynn
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Network Watcher vs. LogRhythm NetMon and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.