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

Amazon OpenSearch Service vs Splunk AppDynamics comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 6, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Amazon OpenSearch Service
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
35th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (30th)
Splunk AppDynamics
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
245
Ranking in other categories
IT Infrastructure Monitoring (4th), IT Operations Analytics (2nd), Mobile APM (2nd), Container Monitoring (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Amazon OpenSearch Service is 1.7%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Splunk AppDynamics is 4.8%, down from 6.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

VijayKumar27 - PeerSpot reviewer
Effective as a vector store, serverless architecture but there aren't enough security features
The pricing aspect is a concern. The service is way too costly. For the past month, I used only 30 to 40 MB of data, and the cost was $500. AWS could improve pricing. Even being serverless, it incurs charges during idle times. For just holding data, you need to create a list. AWS should add an option to make data idle, so it won't include computing charges. They charge for OCU units based on the time the serverless solution is up, not on indexing or retrieval speed. Once the service starts, it starts getting billed. It would help if there were an option to limit computing. When using it as a database, storing data without frequent fetching would save computing costs.
Muhammad Zeeshan Siddiqui - PeerSpot reviewer
Dynamic mapping enhances workflows that are user-friendly
One aspect that requires improvement is the agent. Without an agent, gathering sufficient information on applications is challenging. Additionally, the agent sometimes creates performance issues in production environments. If AppDynamics could develop a means to monitor without an agent, it could significantly improve application performance and reduce potential problems. Moving to an agentless solution, like what some competitors are doing, would be beneficial.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We retrieve historical data with just a click of a button to move it from cold to hot or warm because it's already stored in the backend storage"
"Amazon OpenSearch Service provides a managed database solution, so we don't need to manage everything ourselves."
"The customer service is excellent, rated nine out of ten."
"Amazon OpenSearch Service has enhanced our organization's ability to store and search large amounts of data efficiently."
"I would definitely recommend Amazon OpenSearch Service to other professionals due to its fast and reliable search capabilities."
"The business analytics capabilities are the most important feature it provides."
"This service already sorts data like vectors. They have classified the storage pre-defined."
"We can make custom alerts in our system for specific issues like high CPU utilization or application downtime."
"All the metrics are baselines in networks, infrastructure, application, and user experience. AppDynamics offers its own query language. It is called ADQL. You can write code of any kind to do queries and analysis and you can use those within the reporting or within other research."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I don't see any problems in the solution...The solution's technical support was good."
"The most valuable features of AppDynamics is the scalability and monitoring."
"In 2014 and 2015, AppDynamics was one of the best products on the market."
"AppDynamics is scalable. They can monitor billions of transactions because they're not monitoring all transactions. They're monitoring samples. So, they can offer good monitoring for the huge sites."
"Capacity planning is, in my opinion, the most useful."
"It is a wonderful monitoring tool that manages various aspects such as system resources (CPU, RAM), mobile performance, and infrastructure monitoring."
 

Cons

"One improvement I would like to see is support for auto-scaling."
"One improvement I would like to see is support for auto-scaling."
"The price is fair yet leans towards the expensive side. I'd rate it five out of ten with respect to capabilities vs. cost."
"They can enhance data visualization."
"We faced documentation challenges during integration after migrating from Elasticsearch to Amazon OpenSearch Service. Better documentation on integration, query handling, and a more user-friendly UI could enhance the product."
"The pricing aspect is a concern. The service is way too costly. For the past month, I used only 30 to 40 MB of data, and the cost was $500. AWS could improve pricing."
"It would be beneficial to have some level of customization available in the managed service, tailored to the specific use cases of the end users."
"This feature needs to be properly described to a client, and then the client needs to have a use case. There are some clients which do not need it and some clients who do. It is not for everyone and is dependant on their use case."
"I could not find a user-friendly interface for querying, and analytics sometimes gives the wrong results...I feel that analytics could have been better in searching and running the analytical queries."
"This product has an issue with initial lag upon opening that we would like to see improved."
"The training on the dashboards that is provided could be a little bit better, as could the use cases. They should have some good examples out there. As it is right now, I had to scour YouTube to find some stuff."
"It is stable, but the only downside is the licensing part."
"The end-user experience is not really good because we can't catch all of the transactions. We only can catch the full stack of flow transactions, but I think that this is caused by the technology they use. If they will catch every transaction, it will cause a very big load on the performance of applications. The monitoring of all transactions needs improvement."
"It would help to maybe have a more graphical interface and more user-friendly graphics."
"More native support for other hardware is needed because having to install various extensions and perform extra setup for different devices is really challenging, and not as easy or straightforward as it is in other products."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The license for AppDynamics is procured by our customers."
"Our purchasing experience through the AWS Marketplace has been pretty painless."
"It could be cheaper. It's a little cost prohibitive. There are so many features that also show a lot of value, but it’s not always easy to justify the cost."
"AppDynamics does not usually do monthly payments. They do it on an annual basis, at the very least."
"AppDynamics is an expensive solution."
"As a technical person, and as an application development team, they all understand that this is the right tool for us. But when it comes to budget and financial matters, it takes days and weeks to convince upper management to buy this tool. So they should do something more on licensing costs."
"AppDynamics Server Monitoring is an expensive solution."
"One of the main downsides to the solution is its cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
5%
Educational Organization
48%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Amazon OpenSearch Service?
We retrieve historical data with just a click of a button to move it from cold to hot or warm because it's already stored in the backend storage
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Amazon OpenSearch Service?
Amazon OpenSearch Service is a bit costly compared to self-hosted Elasticsearch due to the managed service pricing.
What needs improvement with Amazon OpenSearch Service?
One improvement I would like to see is support for auto-scaling. The current configuration does not support automatic scaling based on server load, requiring us to manage the scaling manually. Addi...
Any advice about APM solutions?
There are many factors and we know little about your requirements (size of org, technology stack, management systems, the scope of implementation). Our goal was to consolidate APM and infra monitor...
APM tools for a Managed Service Provider - Dynatrace vs. AppDynamics vs. Aternity vs. Ruxit
Hi Avi! It's great to see your thorough approach to selecting an APM package for your MSP company. Considering your focus on SMBs and enterprises in Israel, Dynatrace seems like a solid choice with...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Cisco, Sony, Nasdaq, Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Edmunds.com, Puma, Fox News, DirecTV, Pizza Hut, T-Systems, Cornell University, OpenTable, BITMARCK, Green Mountain Power, Care.com, Overstock, Paddy Power, eHarmony, Kraft, The Motley Fool, The Container Store, and more See more customers
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon OpenSearch Service vs. Splunk AppDynamics and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.