We performed a comparison between Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) and IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Google's technical support is very good."
"Our company has a corporate account for Google Cloud and so our systems and clusters integrate really well."
"The most valuable feature is the multi-cloud integration, where there is support for both GCP and AWS."
"The cloud login enables us to get our logs from the different platforms that we currently use."
"The features that I have found most valuable are its graphs - if I need any statistics, in Kubernetes or Kong level or VPN level, I can quickly get the reports."
"Provides visibility into the performance uptime."
"I like the monitoring feature."
"We find the solution to be stable."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pros →
"IBM's main value lies in its integration with its own technologies, which can be seen as a benefit in environments where IBM products are extensively used."
"The solution is very stable. We never had any issues with stability."
"This solution could be improved if it offered the ability to analyze charts, such as a solution like Kibana."
"It could be more stable."
"If I want to track any round-trip or breakdowns of my response times, I'm not able to get it. My request goes through various levels of the Google Cloud Platform (GCP) and comes back to my client machine. Suppose that my request has taken 10 seconds overall, so if I want to break it down, to see where the delay is happening within my architecture, I am not able to find that out using Stackdriver."
"It could be even more automated."
"It is difficult to estimate in advance how much something is going to cost."
"The product provides minimal metrics that are insufficient."
"While we are satisfied with the overall performance, in certain cases we must add additional metrics and additional tools like Grafana and Dynatrace."
"The logging functionality could be better."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Cons →
"The installation process is difficult, requiring continuous support and specialist expertise due to our limited knowledge of managing it effectively."
"The user interface was not good."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is ranked 27th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 9 reviews while IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager is ranked 55th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 2 reviews. Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is rated 7.8, while IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager is rated 6.6. The top reviewer of Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) writes "Good logging and tracing but does need more profiling capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager writes "Integrates well with IBM technologies, but it's outdated and lacks essential features". Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is most compared with AWS X-Ray, Datadog, Azure Monitor, Amazon CloudWatch and Grafana, whereas IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager is most compared with Dynatrace, IBM Application Performance Management and Azure Monitor. See our Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) vs. IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability 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.