No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Elastic Observability vs Snare comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 9, 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

Elastic Observability
Ranking in Log Management
14th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability (11th), IT Infrastructure Monitoring (13th), Container Monitoring (5th), Cloud Monitoring Software (12th)
Snare
Ranking in Log Management
46th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (54th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Log Management category, the mindshare of Elastic Observability is 1.3%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Snare is 1.1%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Log Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Elastic Observability1.3%
Snare1.1%
Other97.6%
Log Management
 

Featured Reviews

Stefan Decuypere - PeerSpot reviewer
Technology Consultant at Hybrid software
Real-time dashboards and visual insights have streamlined issue analysis and monitoring
After careful consideration about areas for improvement in Elastic Observability, aspects such as pricing, customization, implementation, and scalability could be improved. As a user of the system, I know what it costs but am not directly involved in cost-benefit evaluations or maintenance, which is handled by another team. I develop the visual representation of the data and frankly, I don't see major gaps in my application or anything I would really miss; I appreciate the fast pace of the developments that have occurred in the last couple of years. Regarding room for improvement in Elastic Observability, I would have preferred built-in tools to manage the indexes on deployment for better visual representation, as the initial feedback regarding system performance and data storage was fairly primitive and lacking.
Frank Eargle - PeerSpot reviewer
Information Security Engineer at Glasshouse Systems
A highly scalable solution that is easy to manage and super easy to set up
We use Snare for picking up Windows logs, and we used to use it for SQL as well. We had used it for Linux once or twice. We're mainly using it for Windows and Windows flat files The most valuable feature of Snare is flexibility or the ability to filter all things you don't want and don't have…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I have built a mini business intelligence system based on Elastic Observability."
"In addition to the fact that we are more proactive in the detection of incident before they occur, we can on one click see the request path from the customer to the backend."
"Good design and easy to use once implemented."
"It has always been a stable solution."
"Elastic Observability significantly improves incident response time by providing quick access to logs and data across various sources. For instance, searching for specific keywords in logs spanning over a month from multiple data sources can be completed within seconds."
"The ability to ensure that the data is searchable and maintainable is highly valuable for our purposes."
"The very positive features are the cost effectiveness and the range of things that you can implement."
"The solution is open-source and helps with back-end logging. It is also easy to handle."
"Snare has good agents, especially for Windows."
"The best thing about Snare is its format and consistency."
"The most valuable feature of Snare is flexibility or the ability to filter all things you don't want and don't have security value."
 

Cons

"There could be more low-code features included in the product."
"With Elastic, you need to code and program more things compared to Dynatrace."
"I would have preferred built-in tools to manage the indexes on deployment for better visual representation, as the initial feedback regarding system performance and data storage was fairly primitive and lacking."
"The interface could be improved."
"The solution would be better if it was capable of more automation, especially in a monitoring capacity or for the response to abnormalities."
"The cost must be made more transparent."
"Elastic Observability could improve asset discovery as the current requirement to push the agent is not ideal."
"I would advise others to use a different solution than Elastic APM."
"The solution is now developing a SIEM-like feature on Snare Central Server, but it's not complete yet."
"Users will initially find it difficult to identify the event types and installation in Snare."
"Snare should modernize its GUI a little bit."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Elastic Observability is cheaper than other similar solutions, such as Dynatrace. Its license calculation is based on various factors like data volume and physical infrastructure, particularly related to RAM capacity."
"Since we are a huge company, Elastic Observability is an affordable solution for us."
"One needs to pay for the licenses, and it is an annual subscription model right now."
"We have been using the open-source version."
"The price of Elastic Observability is expensive."
"The product’s pricing needs improvement."
"There are two types: cloud and SaaS. They charge based on data ingestion, ingest rate, hard retention, and warm retention. I believe it costs around $25,000 annually to ingest 30GB of data daily. That is the SaaS version. There is also a self-managed license where the customer manages their own infrastructure on-prem. In such cases, there are three license tiers that respectively cost $5,000 annually per node, $7,000 per node, and $12,500 per node."
"Users have to pay for some features, like the alerts on different channels, because they are unavailable in different source versions."
"Snare is a cheap solution because a lot of customers are using it."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate Snare's pricing a four out of ten."
"Snare has reasonable pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Log Management solutions are best for your needs.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise16
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Elastic Observability?
The problem is their licensing model, which is a bit confusing. Many customers struggle to understand their total cost of ownership because Elastic licensing is not dependent on easy, quantifiable ...
What needs improvement with Elastic Observability?
After careful consideration about areas for improvement in Elastic Observability, aspects such as pricing, customization, implementation, and scalability could be improved. As a user of the system,...
What is your primary use case for Elastic Observability?
My use case for Elastic Observability is observability, as we upload our customers' data, including logs, and when there is an issue, we can analyze what went wrong.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

PSCU, Entel, VITAS, Mimecast, Barrett Steel, Butterfield Bank
Military, Defence and Security Agencies, Banking Finance and Insurance companies, Retail, Health and Utilities.
Find out what your peers are saying about Elastic Observability vs. Snare and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.