We performed a comparison between Datadog and syslog-ng based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Log Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Datadog has a lot of features to be able to drill down deep into the swath of logs that our platforms generate."
"It is easy to implement and scale applications with standardized visibility, monitoring and alerting"
"The most valuable feature of Datadog is its logs."
"Its logs are most valuable."
"Sometimes it's more user friendly for development teams. There are some parts of Datadog that are more understandable for development teams. For example, the APM in Datadog works more manually and works like the tools in New Relic or Grafana, or Elastic. It is easier to understand for software development teams."
"Thanks to the logs, we manage to make better reports through Jira and also to trace the request with more facility than we would be able to do otherwise."
"The flexibility to create notebooks and dashboards and fully customize them gives us a lot of power to track the exact services and endpoints we are working on."
"Datadog's log aggregation is really helpful since it lets me and every other engineer on my team login, view, and share logs when we need to debug our application."
"The ability to extract and store the logs is the most valuable feature of syslog-ng."
"Syslog-ng has a separate config file in addition to the core configuration."
"Syslog-ng provides easy access to all my logs. It helps me show managers and other clients precisely where an incident occurred. I also like it because you can integrate syslog-ng with multiple solutions to allow real-time monitoring."
"Syslog-ng has built-in features that we can use to create alerts for a SIEM solution. It isn't a true SIEM solution, but it's sufficient for the time being."
"For us, the most valuable feature is the use of compound search for searching logs at a specific time, by a specific user, or specific behavior."
"Datadog could have a better business analysis module."
"The error traceability is an area that can be improved."
"Datadog is expensive."
"Some of the interface is still confusing to use."
"ECS could be improved by including more tutorials for beginners to reduce the barriers to entry."
"The product is quite complex, and there are so many features that I either didn't know about or wasn't sure how to use."
"I've found that the documentation is lacking in certain regards."
"When it comes to storing the logs with Datadog, I'm not sure why it costs so much to store gigabytes or terabytes of information when it's a fraction of the cost to do so myself."
"There is room for improvement in terms of observability."
"It's hard to find people who know how to use syslog-ng. I often find problems with configurations, and solutions aren't integrated correctly with syslog-ng. For example, there might be data with extra decimals, or the collector agents are incorrectly named. It isn't a problem with the solution; it's a lack of professionals."
"There is always the potential for additional integration and protocol extensions."
"The filtering has room for improvement."
"Syslog-ng has built-in features that we can use to create alerts for a SIEM solution. It isn't a true SIEM solution, but it's sufficient for the time being."
Datadog is ranked 2nd in Log Management with 137 reviews while syslog-ng is ranked 17th in Log Management with 5 reviews. Datadog is rated 8.6, while syslog-ng is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". On the other hand, the top reviewer of syslog-ng writes "It's a user-friendly open-source solution that can replace or augment a commercial product in some cases". Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, Azure Monitor, New Relic, AWS X-Ray and AppDynamics, whereas syslog-ng is most compared with SolarWinds Kiwi Syslog Server, Graylog, Grafana Loki, Logstash and LogLogic. See our Datadog vs. syslog-ng report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors.
We monitor all Log Management 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.
