Azure Monitor Reviews

We use it for proactive infrastructure monitoring. It's being used for monitoring the key metrics and availability of infrastructure.

We most probably use its latest version.

It's a Microsoft native tool, so it works well with other Microsoft technologies, which is predominantly what our customer end-user base is.

Automation is a key benefit of it as well. You can link one box to automatically resolve the issues off the back of another. There's quite a lot you can do with it.

The query builder could be better. In comparison to other monitoring tools, in order to use Azure Monitor, your engineers need to have KQL experience. If they don't, it's not intuitive as a system. They need to understand KQL and get the right queries to get the value that they want, whereas a lot of out-of-the-box solutions, such as FrameFlow and Datadog, can be given to somebody untrained, and the UI will guide them through what they need to do. You lose some customization with that, but you don't need to train people on it. It would be good if Microsoft had some form of query builder in place so that you can choose a metric and it writes the code for you. Some kind of AI elements would help with that skill gap for organizations.

Their support also needs to be improved. I've had a lot of issues with their support.

I've been using this solution for two years.

I've not had any issues with it so far. I'd rate it a ten out of ten in terms of stability.

You can scale it pretty easily. I'd rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability. 

We probably have about 30 people using this solution.

Their support is not great. We pay for Premier Support because we're a partner, and even that's pretty bad. I've had a lot of issues with their support. It has nothing to do with Microsoft Azure Monitor as a tool. I'd rate Microsoft's support for any of their systems at the absolute lowest number that I possibly can because it's pretty bad. The time to get engineers is an issue, and their skills and knowledge are also questionable. My team is more knowledgeable than them on some of the platform-related things.

They also make a lot of mistakes. They have brought the platform down a couple of times in recent months. There has been a whole heap of stuff. I've had quite lengthy conversations with our account manager about how poor the service is, and there isn't anything they're going to do about it because it's at the organizational level. It's not one team. It seems Microsoft is going through some struggles at the moment.

Negative

We used FrameFlow. We switched to being native. It's a Microsoft native tool.

The deployment duration depends on the use case. It depends on what you want. You don't deploy Azure Monitor itself. It's not like other tools where you have to install nodes and install the software and deploy it. It comes natively with Azure as a platform, so the implementation time is just dependent on what the client wants out of it. For our use case, we set up a template of about 15 to 20 key metrics that we monitor, which probably doesn't take longer than a day to deploy. It's all templated. We just run a bunch of CLI commands, and it deploys those templates, but if you have a customer who wants to start monitoring more intricate or complex things such as SQL databases and applications, you can probably spend months on it.

In terms of the number of people required, one person can do it if he or she has the skills for it.

I don't really measure return on investment. It's about visibility. It's about providing the service for us. If we compare the implementation versus the visibility we get, we do get a return. It doesn't take that long to deploy, but it can subsequently create a lot of visibility. So, its return on investment is probably okay.

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.

I'd advise learning KQL before you think about it. If you know KQL, you can do a lot with it. If you understand KQL, then it's really powerful, and you can do a lot with it. If you don't understand it, you should probably steer away from it because you won't be able to do much. You won't get much value out of it.

I'd rate Azure Monitor a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for the monitoring of the agent. Whatever resources we create, it will install one agent on that resource. It will collect all the matrices. It will do a detailed analysis of how much CPU, RAM, and memory should be utilized. We can get all this information by using Azure Monitor.

Azure Monitor is a very easy-to-use product in the cloud environment.

We cannot use AI services with the solution.

I have been using Azure Monitor for five years.

Azure Monitor is a very stable product, and I don't find any bugs in it.

Around 50,000 users are using the solution in our organization.

I have contacted the technical support team regarding how to use the solution, how to monitor, and what to do if we lose any logs. I am happy with the technical support team and the information they provided.

The solution’s pricing depends on how much logs it collects.

The solution is deployed on the cloud in our organization.

Most of the resources are inbuilt monitoring systems. Apart from those things, we can have more monitoring by using the analytics tools. Azure will provide the insights and analytics tool to collect data from all the resources, and we can store it in one centralized storage account.

We can analyze and do a lot of research on the logs. Azure will provide all these things, and it is a very easy-to-use product. Azure Monitor is not a standalone product. An inbuilt agent will be already running when you create any VM or machine. On top of that, we can see the logs as soon as the VM or machine is created.

The solution's documentation is very easy to understand. We can go through the documentation, and we can find the related information very quickly. Azure Monitor is very easy to use.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

As an Azure solution architect, I am currently assisting a client who requires a quote for a report comparison between New Relic and Azure Monitor. Given my experience with Azure Monitor, my goal is to showcase its capabilities and potentially eliminate the need for New Relic in their environment.

Azure Monitor is primarily a web application that offers comprehensive monitoring capabilities for Azure resources. It encompasses various aspects, including logging and application insights. With Azure Monitor, you can configure alerts and rules based on specific conditions, such as triggering an alert when CPU usage exceeds 80%. The cost of alerts and notifications in Azure Monitor is relatively affordable, typically charging around 10 cents per alert per rule, allowing for a large volume of SMS notifications, such as up to a hundred thousand.

Comparatively, New Relic also offers cost-effective solutions. However, it is important to note that New Relic's pricing structure includes charges for user creation. Normal user creation can cost around $50, while admin users may incur a charge of approximately $99. 

On the other hand, when using Azure Monitor, if your organization already has an Azure subscription with Azure Active Directory (AD), you can leverage the existing user access and permissions, granting appropriate rights and access to the Azure portal as needed.

Among the valuable features of this solution, Application Insights stands out as one of the most significant. It provides insights into application performance and helps identify issues and bottlenecks. 

Azure Monitor offers a notification feature that enables proactive monitoring and alerting. This feature proves particularly useful in ensuring timely responses to critical events and maintaining overall system health.

In terms of pricing, Azure Monitor's billing based on data size can sometimes lead to increased costs, especially when developers need to purge data frequently.

While there are mechanisms in place to track and manage this, there is room for improvement in terms of optimizing data pausing and related processes.

Enhancements in this area could help mitigate potential billing concerns and provide a more seamless experience for users.

I have been working with Azure Monitor for three years.

I would rate the stability of Azure Monitor an eight and a half out of ten. It's pretty stable.

During the early years of 2017 or 2018, the server faced significant challenges in terms of flexibility and stability. However, in recent years, notable improvements have been made, resulting in a much more stable environment.

I would rate the scalability an eight and a half out of ten.

Overall, I find Azure Monitor to be quite impressive. It's worth noting that there may be some aspects I haven't explored yet since learning opportunities arise daily. However, based on my experience with the features I have utilized thus far, I am genuinely satisfied with Azure Monitor's performance and capabilities.

Azure Monitor is applicable to companies of all sizes, ranging from small to mid-size to enterprise-level organizations. However, it's important to exercise caution and use it wisely, as Azure can become costly if resources are used unnecessarily. By utilizing Azure Monitor efficiently, you can effectively manage costs, optimize licensing, and ensure that resources are allocated appropriately to maximize value. 

When anticipating high traffic on virtual machines or app servers, you have the flexibility to adjust memory usage and CPU utilization accordingly. This allows you to effectively manage resources based on varying traffic patterns. Additionally, if you need to track logs and gain insights into application behavior, utilizing Application Insights is recommended. However, it's important to consider the data retention period carefully. Storing data for seven or fifteen days strikes a balance between retaining necessary information and managing costs, as charges are based on the storage size in gigabytes (GB), which can be relatively expensive.

I would rate the technical support a nine and a half out of ten. 

The technical support provided for Azure services is highly commendable. Whenever a critical support ticket, such as a P1 level issue, is raised, the response is prompt and efficient. The support team promptly reaches out, assigns a dedicated engineer, and provides assistance to resolve the issue effectively. My personal experience with Azure technical support has been excellent.

The response time of Azure technical support is commendable. They have a system in place where you can create tickets based on the severity of the issue. If you designate a ticket as P1 (indicating the highest priority), they will promptly reach out to you, ensuring immediate attention and allocation of a dedicated engineer to resolve the matter efficiently.

The initial setup is straightforward.

Our focus is on migrating from an on-premises environment to Azure, as we aim to leverage the benefits of the public cloud. Given my extensive experience with Azure and multiple successful cloud projects, I can confidently say that Azure offers significant advantages in terms of cost-effectiveness, performance, and comprehensive services. 

By using Azure, we can consolidate all our requirements in one place, benefiting from the comprehensive suite of Microsoft offerings available within the Azure ecosystem.

As an Azure Solution Architect and Azure DevOps Engineer, my role revolves around overseeing and managing Azure solutions. I am responsible for designing and implementing Azure-based architectures, as well as ensuring the smooth operation of Azure DevOps processes.

As part of your project analysis, you are tasked with determining whether Azure Monitor or New Relic is better suited for your specific project requirements. This comparison will help you evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each solution and make an informed decision based on your client's needs and project background.

In our evaluation, our primary focus has been on comparing Azure Monitor with New Relic rather than considering other alternatives. Given my extensive experience with Microsoft technologies, particularly in Microsoft Azure, I aim to promote Azure and showcase its capabilities as a robust alternative to New Relic. My goal is to eliminate the reliance on New Relic and emphasize the value and benefits of leveraging Azure in our project.

In case you encounter numerous application issues, such as errors or performance concerns, Azure Monitor offers the solution of enabling Application Insights. This feature allows you to gain valuable insights into your application's behavior. Additionally, Azure Monitor provides the flexibility to create rules and set up alerts. With up to ten alerts per hour across ten distinct rules, you can effectively monitor and respond to critical events in a timely manner.

I would rate Azure Monitor an eight out of ten.

We are in a consulting firm. Based on the requirement, we utilize our solutions. If any application requires specific monitoring, then we use Azure Monitor. We try to utilize the application functionality available, subject to the application requirements.

Azure Monitor helps us manage and monitor based on the requirements set by our clients. It allows us to provide solutions effectively.

The security and support are good. I am a part of the solution team and provide solutions related to monitoring, backup, security, and hosting for our clients.

No improvements are needed from my perspective.

I have been working with Azure Monitor as a consultant for around two years.

I would rate the stability at a nine out of ten since you cannot stop all threats. That said, Azure Monitor provides sufficient protection.

Azure Monitor is scalable from the infrastructure point of view.

Whenever we require support, we receive it, and the availability is high. I would rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

Organizations also use Azure Sentinel for better details and more options, however, we have not replaced Azure Monitor.

Setup is handled by the implementation team and is considered straightforward.

Our implementation team is well aware of the process and parameters required for deploying Azure Monitor.

Pricing is handled by the finance department, so I don't have insight into it.

Monitoring is a part of many applications with their own dashboards. We also use Azure Sentinel.

I recommend Azure to others because there are multiple service providers, however, Azure meets our requirements well. It depends on the client's needs and availability.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Azure Monitor is very good. We periodically monitor the performance of our database and servers, and we can manage that easily.

We have a lot of applications running, and we have asked our technical team to monitor their performance.

It is already integrated with many platforms. It has a lot of important export APIs, and GitHub is integrated. So, integration is not a problem with Azure Monitor.

What I like about Azure Monitor is that it performs well, is stable, and is easy to use.

We can see how much consumption is happening because it's linked to the payment. We want to know the data consumption for a period of time, and all this information is available there. It's used to monitor the data.

What I feel is when I open a screen of Azure, some places are very complex to navigate to. It is not very user-friendly when it comes to accessing certain sections. 

For example, finding the billing screen is not easy. Accessing the tabs can be complex because there is too much data on a single page.

So, it becomes difficult for someone who is not technically inclined to navigate.

So the UI could be improved.

It's been a few years, like two to three years.

At the end of the day, we have seen that it is more of a usage for us. We can monitor our applications and their performance.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

Every time the version is updated, so it's scalable. Azure keeps on updating the solution, so it is very much scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's a complete Azure cloud solution.

It is enabled by default. Once we deploy, we just have to trigger it. As long as we have the platform available, it comes as a default option with the subscription for Azure.

It comes with enablement already.

My team took less than an hour to set it up.

It's a very cost-effective solution. Since we are using Microsoft products, mainly built on .NET, it works very well. That's one advantage here. It's a very good ROI for us.

I have saved almost 50% of my costs compared to other cloud solutions. We are almost two years in, and we are paying every month. They are being billed, actually. We have a pay-as-you-go account. It is very good.

If we have more usage, you know, you have to pay more. If the usage is very low, for example, all my development servers are inside Azure, if my technical team is consolidating or developing the solution on their own desktop or laptop, they will not use the cloud servers. So, at that time, we are not being charged.

One thing that is actually very advantageous is that pay as you go is very helpful in curbing the cost.

Every month, we pay a licensing fee. It's cheaper. We used Google for a month or two, and it was very expensive. But when we changed the same solution to Azure, our costs were 50% less than what Google was charging us. From a pricing point of view, Azure is the cheapest.

AWS is now coming to us. They're ready to give us a solution for free for the next year. They're ready to give a free tenant to monitor our application. But at this point, we have been using Azure. It is very cost-effective compared to AWS and Google. Azure is much cheaper. It is a pay-as-you-go model. 

At the end of the day, I would say it's a very good product for us because we can monitor how our applications are performing. This is very important for us because it's our own application. 

We need to know its performance, collect data, visualize, and analyze. We can also improve our product based on the results we see from the monitor.

Any issues, we can go into the logs and trace them. We can do tracing as well. There are a lot of features.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My recommendation:

If you use a Microsoft product, for example, if you are developing a product in .NET or other Microsoft products, you can use Azure. It's very scalable and works very well. There are many native applications in Azure Systems that can be utilized. 

For example, if you develop your backend in .NET and use an SQL database or even MongoDB, you can use Azure because it's a native competitor for Microsoft.

Azure Monitor can be used to monitor on-prem servers. You can install the agent on a server on-premise and you can pull out whatever telemetry you want. Additionally, you can install it on servers that are on the public cloud. It's similar to hybrid solutions. However, it depends on the use case. If there's a server on-premise, you deploy the server in AWS or GCP. If the server is on Azure itself, then it plugs directly in which is a hybrid setup.

Azure Monitor can be used if you are trying to look for how all the applications are tied together, such as application mapping. It helps to know what ports are open, what services are running on certain servers as one. 

We are able to monitor CPU utilization for specific servers to determine if they are running specific types of workloads or high resource utilization type workloads. We use Azure Monitor to be able to see if the server gets to a certain threshold, such as 70 percent CPU utilization, then send an alert to the operation center or reliability center to go look at it. They could then expand or increase the CPU resource there to fix the issue. The tool is used for monitoring purposes.

Azure Monitor has helped our organization to have insights into issues and informs us before an issue becomes a very critical stage. It provides us a baseline on how to prevent serious issues in the future. You don't want it to get to 90 percent usage, if you catch it at 70 percent, it helps preserve the lifespan of that sever or allow your services to keep running efficiently or effectively. It keeps the availability of whatever service that you're running on that server, is in check. This is one of the most important parts of the service.

Azure Monitor is useful because of the useful application insights and telemetry, such as metrics and logs.

Azure Monitor could improve the visualization aspect and integrate better with other third-party services.

I have been using Azure Monitor for approximately four years.

Azure Monitor is a stable solution.

The scalability of Azure Monitor is very good because it is on a public platform.

We have approximately 500 users using this solution. We are extensively using Azure Monitor and we are always adding to it.

The support we have received from Microsoft has been good. Depending on the issue you might be facing, they could respond within less than 24 hours during business hours.

The initial setup of Azure Monitor is straightforward. The process took us approximately one hour.

We did the implementation of Azure Monitor in-house.

The price of the solution is reasonable. 

I have evaluated Datadog before choosing Azure Monitor.

I rate Azure Monitor an eight out of ten.

As a Microsoft MVP and MCT, I help our company's clients use Azure Monitor in different ways depending on what types of activity they want to monitor. From a big picture perspective, this entails checking and testing both the performance and efficiency of cloud-based applications.

Starting from the basics, such as when monitoring VMs, you are able to integrate Azure Monitor with the virtual machine so as to create alerts and notifications that are automatically triggered when, for example, the machine's performance rises above 60-70%.

You can also use Azure Monitor to help you understand the total internal activity, including the CPU or RAM performance, of specific applications on the cloud. And beyond that, there are many other metrics detailing which users have logged in (or are concurrently logged in) to the application or VM, while showing the ratios of their activity in total.

For me, the best feature is the log analysis with Azure Monitor's Log Analytics. Without being able to analyze the logs of all the activities that affect the performance of a machine, your monitoring effectiveness will be severely limited.

Although it's not always the case, the price can sometimes get expensive. This depends on a number of factors, such as how many services you are trying to integrate with Azure Monitor and how much storage they're consuming each month (for example, how large are the log files?).

Of course, this totally depends on the particular customer's environment. As the implementer, we can typically only advise on the technical outcomes for a certain usage scenario of Azure Monitor, and not necessarily the advantages or disadvantages of paying for Azure Monitor in their particular use case. For example, if they are paying $400 per month, the advantages for the customer might be that they reduce technical headaches in ensuring proper service performance without having to invest in a separate IT member to handle the monitoring. And for many customers, this makes good business sense, which is why when we propose the use of Azure Monitor in such a way and give them an example, they often take us up on the proposal, despite the costs involved.

I have been using Azure Monitor for five years.

Azure Monitor is definitely a stable product once we have deployed it to our target. Azure Monitor, when deployed to a VM, will give you a stable interface for taking readings on various aspects of a machine's performance, such as what's going on with the CPU, memory, and data communications.

When it comes to more advanced usage with deeper monitoring, Azure Monitor can integrate with AI to make the process of advising what to do about resolving certain problems much easier.

Azure Monitor is a key part of service integration and it is easy to scale and extend as needed. You can also integrate other services, even third-party ones, with it.

It provides options for scaling it to your own needs in various ways, such as by providing a choice of what types of logs will be generated and how many days you would like to keep the logs for. It also provides options for how many servers you would like to monitor, and whether you will be logging on an hourly, per-minute, or per-second basis.

I am largely satisfied with how the technical support from Microsoft explains their solutions to the issues that we've raised. Although, most of the time, they simply share the most current link from their blog of knowledge base that explains the specific activity that must be done to resolve a problem. This is because Microsoft engineers don't actually provide the technical work themselves, but instead act as advisors, where companies like mine will then be the implementer of the suggested solutions.

The setup for Azure Monitor itself is easy to understand and, for generating logs and such, it's a simple process of configuring how you would like to gather your logs and for how long you would like to keep those records, etc.

It won't take anyone that much time to deploy their monitoring system with Azure Monitor. This is especially true if you understand your business needs well, because you can then quickly integrate Azure Monitor (and Log Analytics or Workbooks) inside your application as appropriate. As an estimate, it could take up to three or four hours at most.

We implement Azure Monitor in-house. Our deployment plan is to first obtain the Azure identity and then make an effort to better understand the service that will be running on the Azure cloud. For example, is it IaaS or PaaS? If it is based on PaaS, then we'll go straight to the application inside the PaaS, and if it's on a VM, then we'll go to the VM (or container) instance and set up the deployment from there. Here, the deployment also depends on the specific resources or Azure subscriptions in use.

Customers of Azure Monitor must pay an amount that depends largely on how many services they need to integrate and the storage space required in terms of logs, etc. If they only have a few small services to monitor, the price won't be too high, but on the opposite side of the spectrum, it can certainly get pricey.

Fortunately, customers can use the calculator provided by Azure to easily estimate the total monthly costs based on the customer's requirements. 

Along with Azure, I also have experience with New Relic, for which I have handled both deployment and connectivity.

I can definitely recommend Azure Monitor for most people, but before recommending it to all I would caution that whether you choose to use it depends largely on the type of service that you are running on the cloud.

One must first be clear about the outcomes of the service that is to be monitored; if it is a critical service or application where you absolutely must monitor each data point or watch for incidents, then you will certainly want to use Azure Monitor.

On the other hand, some companies are running services on the cloud that are not actually critical in the grand scheme of their operations, and to these companies I would not blindly encourage using Azure Monitor. Of course, if they are interested nevertheless, then I would say, sure, they can go forward with it as long as they understand that they will have to pay Microsoft accordingly in order to get something out of Azure Monitor. 

I would rate Azure Monitor an eight out of ten.

I am monitoring all of my Azure Monitor and getting good reports. I can customize the reports to get the information I need. I am also getting emails about which AAS instances are down and everything in the system related to my services.

It is easy to use, scalable, and user-friendly. Microsoft has Many guides and videos to help you understand how to create and use Azure Monitor.

I have used multiple products like Webex and PRTG. Some features could be added. Azure Monitor should add SMS and APIs. We have very limited access to Azure Monitor. I usually get alerts on my phone when they are integrated with Slack.
I am not always available, but my team is. Sometimes, I am traveling and don't have access to my email, but I have Slack and other third-party projects that send me instant messages if a sensor goes down.

I have been using Azure Monitor as a customer for seven years. I have been working in my current company for the past year, but in my previous organization, we used Citrix and Azure Monitor to monitor the instances. 

The product is scalable.

We have almost 23 users, and the network security zone has four users using the solution. Currently, we are not planning to add usage.

The technical support team is good. Sometimes, there was a long waiting period. I've never faced any issues with Azure Monitor. If I’m deploying, I’m drafting a mail to the Microsoft team and receive the response after three days of purpose.

Positive

I faced many issues in my previous organization since I was a beginner in Azure, but I have no issues now. When implementing Citrix on-premises to Azure, we had some problems with adding sensors and SSL certificates.

If I have experience with Azure monitor, everything will come into word-of-mouth publishing. If I am satisfied with Azure monitoring, I will tell my colleagues in any previous organizations or anyone I’m connected with on LinkedIn.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.