Azure Monitor Reviews

We use Azure Data Factory mainly, and we build our own ETR using Databricks. We are a services company, so depending on the requirement for the customer, we use all of Azure's products. We work with infrastructure deployment and want to monitor the health of our deployments.

The metrics and alerts in Azure Monitor allow us to set thresholds on the metrics and receive alerts, providing a good facility for monitoring.

Azure Monitor has metrics and alerts capabilities. It allows you to set thresholds on the metrics and receive alerts. This is an important feature for monitoring.

Azure Monitor could improve by adding capabilities for data observability and integrating more tightly with their data platform components.

I have been familiar with Azure Monitor for the last three to four years.

The technical support by Microsoft Azure is good, however, there is room for improvement in their overall competence.

Neutral

Previously, we used open-source tools before adopting Azure Monitor.

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.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Azure Monitor helps with infrastructure monitoring and getting application logs. 

The tool's most valuable feature is the alert system, which can be set according to our metrics. The integration is smooth. 

Azure Monitor is not user-friendly, and the interface is not exciting. Switching between the dashboards is not easy. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

I rate the tool's stability a seven out of ten. 

I am experienced with Azure, and hence, the installation was easy. However, an inexperienced person may find it difficult. 

Azure Monitor is cheaper compared to other third-party monitoring tools. 

You need to go through the documentation before deploying the solution. Also, learn Kusto Query Language to create custom metrics and logs by yourself. I rate the product a six out of ten. 

We are doing the Azure cloud transformation by moving to link up the application to the cloud. Monitoring is one part of application's transformation.

I only work with the cloud-based model. 

They can simplify the overall complexity since you have multiple data sources in the cloud for monitoring. It's quite simple, but there are so many portals. It takes time to work with it. If they could simplify the user configuration, that would be good.

The integration capabilities could use some improvements.

The product is stable.

It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale.

I have not contacted the technical support for Azure Monitor.

It is easy to create a ticket. The overall Microsoft Azure could be faster.

This was only the traditional basic monitoring for Azure.

It depends of the things that you're going to monitor. For example, when configuring a third-party social Internet application on IaaS services and PaaS, I don't have a software development background. Therefore, it's quite difficult to ask the infrastructure guys, "What is something that I need to monitor from the Azure's SQL Server databases and infrastructure."

It's a fast service to deploy. It's more about defining the configuration. You need to find the right attributes to monitor. It takes about two weeks (10 to 20 days) to assign what to monitor. The actual configuration is quite fast. 

I did a private installation for the customer's Intranet.

The main use case for this solution includes infrastructure monitoring, Application Insights and APM.

One of the most useful aspects of this solution is the out-of-the-box functionality on all areas, especially on Application Insights, zero instrumentation, and artificial intelligence for event correlation.

This solution could be improved with more out-of-the-box functionalities and artificial intelligence to complete event correlation.

I have used this solution for four years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution.

I have previously used Dynatrace and Datadog. Dynatrace is the most expensive solution but also the fastest to produce results. I would rate Datadog to fall between Azure Monitor and Dynatrace. Azure Monitor is the most cost-effective of the three solutions. 

The initial setup is relatively easy. It requires time and involves a lot of work.

Azure Monitor is a full-scale solution that could work for small to larger size companies. For a large enterprise, Azure Monitor may require additional tools to complement the offering.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

We have a financial application that needs to be working, and for our organization, it's important to be able to see the status of the overall application, which we have now. That's our primary use case for the solution. 

The solution integrates well with the Microsoft platform.

In comparison to New Relic, which I've used before, it's a bit more complicated. It's not as easy to use. It also took some time to get it working. The implementation needs to be simpler.

Right now, we're planning to increase usage. We're migrating from on-premises to the cloud. Currently, we have 25 users.

We previously used New Relic. Azure Monitor does a better job of integrating with Microsoft, which is one of its main selling points.

The deployment of the solution is somewhat complex because not all the tools are easy to understand. Just like New Relic, you use the SQL language to do the requests that you want to have specific for your APM. That's a little bit different than I'm used to. I'm trying to learn the language right now.

Currently, we are using all deployment models: public cloud, private, hybrid, and on-premises. Since we already have Azure, they deliver the monitoring solution as part of our environment.

Azure is more integrated into the infrastructure than New Relic was. You can use infrastructure components versus the analytics tool, which is a separate component that you can use for multiple things in different ways.

Currently, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. It's working very well. It does exactly what I expect it to do. I think it's a good solution. It's very well supported by Microsoft.

We are currently testing the Azure Monitor, yet we've not turned it on for production yet.

We were looking for a monitoring tool. We needed a few features, and then we thought that Azure Monitor might not be able to do everything for us out of the box. There might be some development work that may be involved if we have to use Azure Monitor. However, we've really not used it. We are just trying it out now.

The major thing we will use it for is to monitor applications and then resources. For the ones that are on the app services, they are straightforward; however, we're looking at monitoring applications that are running on the virtual machines, on VMs. That's not straightforward. You need to be able to use some APIs to be able to do the logs from the applications that are running on the VM and all that. 

We are in the POC phase. We're still testing things out. 

I'm not working with it directly and therefore haven't noted any outstanding features. 

I'm not working with it directly and therefore haven't noted any missing features.

The setup so far has been complicated.

It might not have all of the capabilities we will need. 

We've barely used it. We just tested it now. We are now trying to turn on our production environment for a while. We just started using it a week or two ago.

We've barely used the solution for production. It's hard to grade the stability at this point. 

I'm not working with the solution directly and can't comment on the scalability.

From what I've seen so far, for our use case, it's a bit complicated if we have to monitor directly from the virtual machine or if we need to pull logs and stuff from the virtual machine to create an API and all that. You need a developer to be able to create an API for you so that the Azure Monitor can consume or pull the logs. From the discussions I've had with the cloud engineer and what we've seen, that area is a bit complicated. That said, it's not like it can't be done.

The pricing is a bit tricky with regard to the storage and then the load. You need to be very particular about what the storage is about. You need to consider the size of storage you need and then the load that you be pushing as well. If you look at the fact sheet, then it is expensive. However, you can't go with the fact sheet since the fact sheet doesn't factor in the environment to determine the cost estimation.

It could be cheap, or it could be expensive, depending on how you deploy or configure it.

We've also looked at SolarWinds. We are looking at ManageEngine, and we're also looking at Foglight Evolve. These are some of the solutions that we are looking at for monitoring.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. We usually just turn it on. 

The upside to the solution is if you are working in a Microsoft or Azure environment, it makes things easier. It's like a Mercedes mechanic working on a Mercedes car as opposed to a Toyota. If you are within the Azure umbrella, it's easier. However, it depends on the company and what it wants to achieve.

I'd rate it six out of ten. 

We are using multiple monitoring tools at the moment and are looking for a single solution that can monitor everything. As part of our current setup, we are using Azure Monitor to monitor our network.

It ensures that our network is responding correctly and looks to see if there are any anomalies.

The most valuable feature is that it ensures our servers are up.

When something goes down, we want the option to have automation in place to get it back up again as quickly as possible.

It is not very user-friendly so the GUI can be improved.

We have just started using Azure Monitor.

We have had no issues with respect to stability.

Scalability has not been a problem.

We have used other monitoring tools and one of the advantages of Azure Monitor is that it is easier for us to use because we're mainly a Microsoft shop.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We deployed in stages over about a month.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this tool is to take your time with it and see if it is the right one for you. If it is, then get rid of all of the other tools.

This is a good product but it is not very user-friendly at this stage.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We are an operation center so we use this solution mainly to monitor all of our clients' environments and to help them with technical issues. So it's mainly promoting clients' environments, technical issues, and being proactive.

I am impressed by the reporting on the average eight ports that we get from this solution.

They need to work on a more hybrid deployment that will allow us to monitor local on-premise deployments and connect to different systems. I would like to see more integration. 

In the next version, I would like to see more mobile applications. The current support is based on email so customers don't have full support. I think the developers need to put some effort into the support team to put skilled people in place and provide phone access.

We've had no major issues, so the program is stable.

I believe the program is scalable.

The initial setup was not that complex but it was definitely not straightforward. You need to have certain design planning in place. We are integrators, so we have an internal team who was responsible for it.

The duration of deployment depends on the size and the number of servers that you need to monitor. Sometimes it takes 20 or 30 days, sometimes takes five days or even less. So it depends on the client size and how much he or she wants to evolve and develop. 

I would say that one person is enough to do the deployment; it really depends on the kind of business.

Azure offers more intelligence than other solutions. Other solutions mainly focus on the network with hardware, but Azure is more open to other platforms.

My advice to others would be to do design planning. I believe there is room for improvement, especially when it comes to mobile applications. That is why my rating is eight out of ten.