We performed a comparison between Elastic Observability and Broadcom DX Application Performance Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: In comparing Broadcom DX Application Performance Management to Elastic Observability, it can be concluded that Elastic Observability is the preferred choice. Users appreciate its cost-effectiveness and licensing compared to other tools, making it a more economical option. It offers a wide range of features, easy deployment, flexibility, and machine learning capabilities. Customer service and support are highly regarded, and the initial setup can vary in complexity.
"Command center is a new feature that provides agent maintenance and support without involving the application team. It saves lots of time for APM team."
"Proactive snapshots of transactions and all details of a transaction are saved in case of an error."
"Service maturity when you can retrieve the normal metrics for every major aspect of each module and delivering this info to the correct eyes."
"It is very useful and helpful with the analysis of historical performance data."
"Now, we know we have a problem, because there is a primary layer of alerting or metrics monitoring put in place, that is the good part."
"Helps the development team to fine-tune and proactively manage the application."
"Enables me to monitor multiple servers, applications, resources, and users"
"The CA tools allow to me to get into detailed transactions for custom ranking, and be able to make predictions. It also gathers data. Some other tools may be good at one area, but not good overall, including the mainframe."
"It's easy to deploy, and it's very flexible."
"The solution allows us to dig deep into data."
"Machine learning is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"It has always been a stable solution."
"I have built a mini business intelligence system based on Elastic Observability."
"Elastic APM has plenty of features, such as the Elastic server for Kibana and many additional plugins. It's a comprehensive tool when used as a logging platform."
"We can view and connect different sources to the dashboard using it."
"The architecture and system's stability are simple."
"Very often, we use tools such as Kibana or Jaspersoft for dashboards and reporting on CA APM data because CA APM’s old interfaces do not reflect well in modern displays, compared to those new tools."
"The reason it's not a ten is because they don't focus enough on improving over time like other competitors do who have a more modern and complete tool."
"Needs custom dashboards."
"I would like to see intelligence, deep intelligence or deep analytics."
"Java Console uses too much memory."
"The following need improvement: 1) Integration of third-party content into app maps (e.g. data coming from beats/elastic platform). 2) Support of new application server technologies, time to adopt new versions of them. 3) Dashboarding capabilities (as with all other vendors). 4) Application architecture of the central Enterprise Manager should be developed into a cloud native architecture. 5) Mitigation of SPOF – PostgreSQL database, behind Team Center."
"The APM upgrade procedure is a bit complicated with compatibility issues which can emerge like between agents and EM/Collectors."
"Stability could actually be helped because it is a wrapper or an agent on our system. If we are having a bad day in production or if other resources are being utilized, then we will get get gaps in our monitoring system."
"Elastic Observability is an excellent product for monitoring and visibility, but it lacks predictive analytics. Most solutions are aligned with the AIOps requirements, but this piece is missing in Elastic and should be included."
"The tool's scalability involves a more complex implementation process. It requires careful calculations to determine the number of nodes needed, the specifications of each node, and the configuration of hot, warm, and cold zones for data storage. Additionally, managing log retention policies adds further complexity. The solution's pricing also needs to be cheaper."
"Elastic Observability needs to have better standardization, logging, and schema."
"There could be more low-code features included in the product."
"The cost must be made more transparent."
"Elastic Observability is reactive rather than proactive. It should act as an ITSM tool and be able to create tickets and alerts on Jira."
"Elastic APM's visualization is not that great compared to other tools. It's number of metrics is very low."
"There is room for improvement regarding its APM capabilities."
More Broadcom DX Application Performance Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is ranked 25th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 161 reviews while Elastic Observability is ranked 7th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 22 reviews. Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is rated 8.0, while Elastic Observability is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Broadcom DX Application Performance Management writes "Provides efficiency in migration and DAW but requires a high level of administrator knowledge for configuration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Elastic Observability writes "The user interface framework lets us do custom development when needed. ". Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, VMware Aria Operations for Applications, BMC TrueSight Operations Management and New Relic, whereas Elastic Observability is most compared with Dynatrace, New Relic, AppDynamics, Azure Monitor and Sentry. See our Broadcom DX Application Performance Management vs. Elastic Observability report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors and best Container Monitoring 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.
