Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Amazon CloudWatch vs Azure Monitor comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.3
Amazon CloudWatch aids in monitoring, reducing manual work, and offers economic benefits with growing adoption during cloud migrations.
Sentiment score
7.0
Azure Monitor provides real-time insights with mixed financial gains, offering significant savings when integrated with Microsoft products.
Amazon CloudWatch offers cost-saving advantages by being an inbuilt solution that requires no separate setup or maintenance for monitoring tasks.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.4
Amazon CloudWatch support is praised for responsiveness and expertise, though experiences vary; users find documentation useful for self-resolving issues.
Sentiment score
6.2
Azure Monitor support receives mixed reviews; premium users report better service, but delays and limited technical depth remain issues.
In recent years, due to business expansion, knowledge levels among support engineers seem to vary.
However, the second-line support is good.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Amazon CloudWatch is highly rated for its seamless scalability and efficient performance handling diverse logs and systems.
Sentiment score
7.7
Azure Monitor is valued for scalability, cloud flexibility, and integration, effectively suiting diverse organizational needs despite some challenges.
Amazon CloudWatch's scalability is managed by AWS.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.1
Amazon CloudWatch is reliable and stable, with minor delays in data display noted by some users, rating it highly.
Sentiment score
8.3
Azure Monitor is stable, reliable, regularly updated, rated highly in stability, and appreciated across various business scales.
I sometimes notice slowness when Amazon CloudWatch agents are installed on machines with less capacity, causing me to use other monitoring tools.
Azure Monitor is working fine, yet I face a costing issue as if there are a lot of logs collected in the workspace or in the center, it becomes very costly.
 

Room For Improvement

Amazon CloudWatch users seek better integration, real-time monitoring, intuitive interfaces, and scalable solutions amid concerns over pricing and log issues.
Azure Monitor users desire better integration, support, AI capabilities, and expanded features for enhanced monitoring and user experience.
Maybe Amazon Web Services can improve by providing a library for CloudWatch with some useful features.
Amazon CloudWatch charges extra for custom metrics, which is a significant disadvantage.
If Azure Monitor can independently add one gigabyte, two gigabytes, or five gigabytes at least to log storage, I can fix the logs without syncing with Log Analytics Workspace and Sentinel.
 

Setup Cost

Amazon CloudWatch's pay-as-you-go pricing varies by usage, with costs from $25 to $350, plus storage fees.
Azure Monitor is cost-effective for Azure clients, offering competitive pricing with pay-as-you-go and expense estimation tools.
Amazon CloudWatch charges more for custom metrics as well as for changes in the timeline.
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.
 

Valuable Features

Amazon CloudWatch offers real-time monitoring, detailed metrics, and seamless AWS integration, appreciated for its scalability and user-friendly interface.
Azure Monitor provides comprehensive monitoring, dynamic alerts, and easy integration with Azure services, supporting infrastructure and application performance.
Being an inbuilt solution from AWS, it saves time on installation, setup, and maintenance.
I like its filtering capability and its ability to give the cyber engine insights.
Resource monitoring is essential.
 

Categories and Ranking

Amazon CloudWatch
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
13th
Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (14th)
Azure Monitor
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
4th
Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software
5th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
54
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Amazon CloudWatch is 1.6%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Azure Monitor is 7.5%, down from 8.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

Rasanpreet Singh - PeerSpot reviewer
Reliable AWS monitoring and logging
The choice of logging solution should always be determined by the specific business requirements. It is crucial to align the logging strategy with what type of logs are needed and how they should be used. There are instances where we require custom solutions to retrieve logs, especially application logs that may not be easily accessible through CloudWatch or similar services. When we heavily rely on AWS native services, CloudWatch is indeed a robust choice. However, in certain scenarios, we might need integration capabilities with other tools, and if they can incorporate such features, it would enhance overall logging capabilities. I would rate it eight out of ten.
Syed Abid  - PeerSpot reviewer
Monthly and weekly resource monitoring has improved efficiency
Azure Monitor can improve by adding some kind of storage for logs. I can get the runtime logs alone, yet if Azure Monitor can independently add one gigabyte, two gigabytes, or five gigabytes at least to log storage, I can fix the logs without syncing with Log Analytics Workspace and Sentinel. If they do that, and if they can integrate a little pricing adjustment, it will be profitable for the Microsoft tool.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
5%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Amazon CloudWatch?
Amazon CloudWatch charges more for custom metrics as well as for changes in the timeline, which I see as a disadvantage given the price.
What needs improvement with Amazon CloudWatch?
Amazon CloudWatch charges extra for custom metrics, which is a significant disadvantage. Another aspect that needs improvement is the look and feel of custom dashboards, which currently do not matc...
How does Splunk compare with Azure Monitor?
Splunk handles a high amount of data very well. We use Splunk to capture information and as an aggregator for monitoring information from different sources. Splunk is very good at alerting us if we...
What do you like most about Azure Monitor?
Azure Monitor is a very easy-to-use product in the cloud environment.
What needs improvement with Azure Monitor?
Azure Monitor can improve by adding some kind of storage for logs. I can get the runtime logs alone, yet if Azure Monitor can independently add one gigabyte, two gigabytes, or five gigabytes at lea...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AirAsia, Airbnb, Aircel, APUS, Avazu, Casa & Video, Futbol Club Barcelona (FCBarcelona), National Taiwan University, redBus
Rackspace, First Gas, Allscripts, ABB Group
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon CloudWatch vs. Azure Monitor and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.