We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and New Relic based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Azure Monitor is praised for its lower cost, better integration with Microsoft technologies, and its ability to monitor cloud resources across multiple subscriptions. Although New Relic is easy to use and provides in-depth application information, it is criticized for its pricing structure and lack of network monitoring features. Azure Monitor also offers valuable resources for new users with customizable templates and best practices from Microsoft. Overall, Azure Monitor is regarded as a strong and dependable product that offers excellent value for its cost.
"Technical support is good and helpful...The initial setup is easy."
"The most valuable feature is that it's stable. It hasn't crossed any thresholds."
"I am impressed by the reporting on the average eight ports that we get from this solution."
"It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"You can scale the product."
"The solution's most valuable features are its ability to focus on delivery and maximizing the performance of applications and services."
"The solution integrates well with the Microsoft platform."
"As soon as it monitors all our systems and is integrated with PagerDuty, the operations team just needs to wait for alerts on their cellphones to fix things."
"End-user Synthetics and monitoring are very good."
"The most important thing is that it tells us where the latency in throughput and response time are."
"You don't have to go through a list of 500 servers."
"Their technical support is pretty good and responsive. We have a real good relationship with them."
"One valuable feature is that the synthetic alert stays open until the issue is resolved. You can actually monitor whether your system is back up."
"The solution is good for sending alerts, drawing graphs about system usage, and creating plug-ins."
"We appreciate the way that this solution allows us to monitor the ongoing status of the UI at any given time."
"It's really complex to retrieve or query the logs in Azure Monitor."
"This solution could be improved with more out-of-the-box functionalities and artificial intelligence to complete event correlation."
"The monitoring of Kubernetes clusters needs improvement to be on par with competitors."
"It might not have all of the capabilities we will need."
"In my opinion, they should improve the overall user experience, especially when it comes to indexing and searching collective logs."
"The length of latency is terrible and needs to be improved."
"There are a lot of things that take more time to do, such as charting, alerting, and correlation of data, and things like that. Azure Monitor doesn't tell you why something happened. It just tells you that it happened. It should also have some type of AI. Environments and applications are becoming more and more complex every day with hundreds or thousands of microservices. Therefore, having to do a lot of the stuff manually takes a lot of time, and on top of that, troubleshooting issues takes a lot of time. The traditional method of troubleshooting doesn't really work for or apply to this environment we're in. So, having an AI-based system and the ability to automate deployments of your monitoring and configurations makes it much easier."
"When something goes down, we want the option to have automation in place to get it back up again as quickly as possible."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"I would like to be able to invest less time in IT and ad hocs. We should be concentrating on other issues."
"I would like a feature where I can turn off alerting at a policy level. Thus, when a policy is inactive, I can shut down all of my alerts within the policy."
"How granular I could go down at looking at certain data, especially related to the operations, is limited."
"The price needs improvement."
"One thing that we noticed was that historical information was only for a limited period, which was not helpful in certain scenarios. For example, if I want to size my system for an event for New Year or Christmas season based on the historical data, I won't be able to find the historical data. Currently, the data is limited to three months. It would be helpful if they can provide historical data for a longer duration so that we can plan our system accordingly."
"There has been some problem with the agent, and it is just not working well. It is not able to record information with the application server. They have been able to fix the issue, but it took quite a long time. This is the main issue in the APM products and also in New Relic. The mobile application monitoring has been pretty difficult to set up and also quite expensive. It should be a little bit easier and cheaper. Because it is pretty difficult and expensive, many customers don't take it."
"The deployment process could be improved."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while New Relic is ranked 3rd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 152 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while New Relic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "A powerful Kusto query language but the alerting mechanism needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of New Relic writes "Has a simple user interface and end-to-end monitoring and self-healing features". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Elastic Observability, whereas New Relic is most compared with Dynatrace, Datadog, Elastic Observability, Grafana and Sentry. See our Azure Monitor vs. New Relic report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors and best Cloud Monitoring Software 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.