We performed a comparison between Grafana and VMware Tanzu Observability by Wavefront based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Grafana offers a more customizable and visually appealing experience with good integration and an open source nature, at a more moderate pricing model with a helpful community, making it the preferred solution. While VMware Tanzu Observability is praised for ease of deployment and integration with multiple solutions, it has concerns with its consumption-based billing model, high license costs, and difficulty in customizing dashboards.
"The most important feature of Grafana is its alarm formatting capability."
"What I found most valuable in Grafana is that it has a lot of integrations and features that I need for data processing and visualization."
"The best thing about Grafana is the visualization. The colors and the ease of use make it very user-friendly."
"Grafana is a very scalable product. It's a really good product."
"Grafana's built-in integration with third-party tools, databases, and MQs is an amazing feature."
"The best feature was the creation of graphs and trends."
"It integrates well with other solutions."
"The most valuable thing was that it had a good visualization tool."
"Tanzu itself, integrated with multiple solutions, bestows support and security upon a container platform, especially when it comes to managing open-source container platforms such as Kubernetes."
"This solution allows me to have true visibility for any metrics when it comes to my cloud, and private."
"VMware comes with a support team, and if you have trouble, you can easily create a ticket, and VMware will help you. Therefore, the best aspect is the support."
"The features I find most valuable is the querying and alerting capabilities."
"The solution is great for virtualization and preparing the infrastructure in Tanzu to test products. It's very fast and has good visibility."
"People are very pleased with the implementation."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are its ease of use and its ease of implementation."
"For us, the ease of deployment in combination with TMZ was the most important part because we don't have to manually deploy a complex monitoring solution. We can more or less do that with the click of a button, and we are not dependent on the developers to provide us with all the necessary features and functions to make that work. We can just deploy it on a workload cluster and monitor at least a good part of the workload. If we want to go into detail, we clearly need to make changes, but for a good part of application monitoring, it gives us good insights."
"I find issues with Grafana. For example, I am unable to open some services there. Then, we have to open ten different tabs to get it fixed. And it's annoying when there's something going on; we want to check Grafana, and it throws four different errors."
"Lacks in-depth graphs and sufficient AI."
"I have a problem with Grafana in the area of documentation."
"The documentation or training provided by Grafana is limited compared to its competitors, like Splunk."
"Writing queries can be a bit difficult because the syntax must be maintained."
"It's difficult to see the trends on the graph when the range is too long."
"Trigger limits are difficult to see in a graph."
"There is a need for improvement in automating daily monitoring reports, especially when alerts are triggered due to system downtimes or fluctuations."
"Its billing model is consumption-based. I understand the consumption-based model, but it is not necessarily easy to estimate and guess how many points or how much we are going to consume on a specific application up until we get to that point. So, for us, it would be helpful to have more insights or predictability into what we can expect from a cost perspective if we are starting to use specific features. This can potentially also drive our consumption a bit more."
"The implementation is a long process that should be improved."
"The documentation and integration with Kubernetes could be improved."
"It could use a URL document server. Everything in the market is moving towards automation and everybody's looking for the single click operations as well relational data locality."
"I would like to see integration with Kubernetes cluster and APIs so that you can manage the entire stack."
"They could make it more easy to plug-in data so that a nontechnical person will be able to use it, like accountants or finance people. That way they don't have to ask us."
"The initial setup should be easier and more seamless."
"In the new version, I would love to see more prediction capabilities. It would be great if one could see the alerts get a little more enriched with information and become more human-friendly instead of the technical stuff that they put in there. I think those would be really awesome outcomes to get."
More VMware Aria Operations for Applications Pricing and Cost Advice →
Grafana is ranked 6th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 38 reviews while VMware Aria Operations for Applications is ranked 32nd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 9 reviews. Grafana is rated 8.0, while VMware Aria Operations for Applications is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Grafana writes "Agent-free with great dashboards and an active community". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware Aria Operations for Applications writes "Easy to deploy, worth the money, and helpful for uptime monitoring and performance insights". Grafana is most compared with New Relic, Azure Monitor, Sentry, Dynatrace and WhatsUp Gold, whereas VMware Aria Operations for Applications is most compared with Dynatrace, Datadog, Zabbix, Prometheus and AppDynamics. See our Grafana vs. VMware Aria Operations for Applications 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.