Azure Monitor is fine and bearable. However, when I export logs into the application, workspace, log analytic workspace, and into Sentinel to read reports, I need to add storage, which increases the cost. I can check the cost.
Senior Principal Architect at a tech vendor with 5,001-10,000 employees
MSP
Top 5
Oct 10, 2024
Using Azure Monitor is less of a hassle for existing Azure customers than procuring another product, even if the cost may be slightly higher. Avoiding additional bureaucracy is also easier when using Azure Monitor as part of the existing Azure suite.
Enterprise Architect at a mining and metals company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5
Sep 13, 2024
The tool is very good, but the pricing model is not clear. While it is not the most expensive nor the cheapest, it falls in the middle. Microsoft could be more flexible with the pricing model.
Cloud Architect at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Aug 13, 2024
The tool's pricing is very good. I could say that Microsoft offers different cost models, which are listed on the product's website. It starts free of cost and goes up to a certain level, and then one just needs to pay above that. Usually, clients don't have to pay to choose anything, which is the biggest advantage of the hosting model.
Head Cloud Operations at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Feb 13, 2023
Its cost depends on the ingestion of the logs. It could go anywhere. For an out-of-the-box platform such as FrameFlow, you pay pretty much a fixed price and you get what you get, whereas, with something like Azure Monitor, you pay by the ingestion charge, so you can have one client who pays hardly anything for the same alerts, and another client pays loads and loads. From experience, Azure itself isn't a cheap system. It's not a cheap tool at all. If you don't configure it correctly, it's really expensive. I'd rate it a nine out of ten.
Associate Consultant at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 10
Nov 29, 2022
The solution is very costly because you have to pay for various things such as adding to logs and internet alerts. Logging costs are very high so should be lowered. Companies who log one TB or more will have very high costs. We should be able to log in a storage account to save costs. Splunk is also very costly.
Because we have to use Log Analytics, in combination with Azure Monitor, it is expensive. It is expensive because the logs are getting generated for store requests across all the Azure resources. This is all that needs to be stored, and both in terms of hot and cold storage. Cold storage after 30 days, but hot storage is required for the NOC and the SOC teams, the network operations, and the security operations teams. Typically, we do try to encourage our customers to keep at least 30 days within Azure Monitor. I would rate Azure Monitor a two out of five for affordability.
Consultant at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Apr 25, 2022
Azure Monitor is not too expensive. On a scale of one to five, with one being expensive and five being affordable and competitively priced, I'm giving the solution a four.
Manager - Infrastructure at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Jun 28, 2020
Due to the fact that the pricing has changed to a date ingest model, it can get very expensive. The costing can fluctuate quite a bit month to month. There isn't a way to really say this costs so many dollars a month.
Azure Monitor is a comprehensive monitoring solution offered by Microsoft Azure. It provides a centralized platform for monitoring the performance and health of various Azure resources, applications, and infrastructure.
With Azure Monitor, users can gain insights into the availability, performance, and usage of their applications and infrastructure. The key features of Azure Monitor include metrics, logs, alerts, and dashboards. Metrics allow users to collect and analyze performance...
The pricing of Azure Monitor rates around six out of ten.
Azure Monitor is fine and bearable. However, when I export logs into the application, workspace, log analytic workspace, and into Sentinel to read reports, I need to add storage, which increases the cost. I can check the cost.
Using Azure Monitor is less of a hassle for existing Azure customers than procuring another product, even if the cost may be slightly higher. Avoiding additional bureaucracy is also easier when using Azure Monitor as part of the existing Azure suite.
Pricing is handled by the finance department, so I don't have insight into it.
The tool is very good, but the pricing model is not clear. While it is not the most expensive nor the cheapest, it falls in the middle. Microsoft could be more flexible with the pricing model.
The tool's pricing is very good. I could say that Microsoft offers different cost models, which are listed on the product's website. It starts free of cost and goes up to a certain level, and then one just needs to pay above that. Usually, clients don't have to pay to choose anything, which is the biggest advantage of the hosting model.
Regarding pricing, Azure Monitor is free with an Azure license, so there are no additional costs for using it.
It's a costly solution.
The solution’s pricing depends on how much logs it collects.
Since we are using the basic set, it is more cost-effective compared to other third-party APM solutions.
The tool is expensive.
Azure Monitor is cheaper compared to other third-party monitoring tools.
The solution is expensive, but it is worth the price.
There is a monthly fee for the alerts triggered and the data stored.
Its cost depends on the ingestion of the logs. It could go anywhere. For an out-of-the-box platform such as FrameFlow, you pay pretty much a fixed price and you get what you get, whereas, with something like Azure Monitor, you pay by the ingestion charge, so you can have one client who pays hardly anything for the same alerts, and another client pays loads and loads. From experience, Azure itself isn't a cheap system. It's not a cheap tool at all. If you don't configure it correctly, it's really expensive. I'd rate it a nine out of ten.
Azure Monitor's price is minimal to the point of being almost negligible. I would rate its pricing eight out of ten.
The solution is a pay-as-you-go consumption service and is the least expensive in the market. I rate pricing an eight out of ten.
The solution is very costly because you have to pay for various things such as adding to logs and internet alerts. Logging costs are very high so should be lowered. Companies who log one TB or more will have very high costs. We should be able to log in a storage account to save costs. Splunk is also very costly.
Because we have to use Log Analytics, in combination with Azure Monitor, it is expensive. It is expensive because the logs are getting generated for store requests across all the Azure resources. This is all that needs to be stored, and both in terms of hot and cold storage. Cold storage after 30 days, but hot storage is required for the NOC and the SOC teams, the network operations, and the security operations teams. Typically, we do try to encourage our customers to keep at least 30 days within Azure Monitor. I would rate Azure Monitor a two out of five for affordability.
The licensing is a monthly fee.
The licenses require a subscription based on the log file sizing. The pricing is better than, for example, New Relic. New Relic was too costly for us.
I'm not concerned about the pricing. Actually that is handled by a different team. It is a pay-as-you-go service. We pay as needed.
Azure Monitor is not too expensive. On a scale of one to five, with one being expensive and five being affordable and competitively priced, I'm giving the solution a four.
The price of the solution is reasonable.
Azure Monitor is a low-priced solution.
I was not involved with the licensing of this solution.
Due to the fact that the pricing has changed to a date ingest model, it can get very expensive. The costing can fluctuate quite a bit month to month. There isn't a way to really say this costs so many dollars a month.
Using the capacity reservations.