We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and AppDynamics 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 the recommended choice over AppDynamics due to its cost-effectiveness, seamless integration with Microsoft technologies, and customizable out-of-the-box functionalities. AppDynamics, while offering various valuable features, is pricey, has a steep learning curve, and lacks a satisfactory end-user experience. Azure Monitor is praised for its application insights, troubleshooting capabilities, ease of configuration and maintenance, and proactive infrastructure information, resulting in a positive ROI.
"I like how the AppDynamics dashboard portrays the information flows. When a task is executed, various flows between different applications and databases happen in the background. The dashboard is intuitive and helps visualize the connections, the directions of the flow, and the information related to these specific sessions."
"It allows us to configure health rules so that we can, based on our own experience, determine when an application is behaving incorrectly."
"Capacity planning is, in my opinion, the most useful."
"It's good for a larger scale deployment such as what my company is working on."
"It gives me the ability to trace logs between transactions, for example, a DB transaction or JVM transaction from one hub to the other. I can easily find out where the problem is or where the bottleneck of the issues lies."
"It is a wonderful monitoring tool that manages various aspects such as system resources (CPU, RAM), mobile performance, and infrastructure monitoring."
"AppDynamics has been stable."
"It reduces the time to resolve issues and requires less manpower."
"It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale."
"Azure Monitor gives us the observability to check everything that we have in the cloud."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"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."
"I am impressed by the reporting on the average eight ports that we get from this solution."
"The dashboard allows us to easily track various metrics and quickly understand the overall health of our system."
"Azure Monitor is useful because of the useful application insights and telemetry, such as metrics and logs."
"Recently, they have improved their integration with other resources, so we get even more robust data."
"There needs to be an option to capture all the sessions for all the users, not just samplings."
"They need to improve the consolidation of agents for the agent's installation process."
"We have had downtime, which has been the result of config, application, or cord issues."
"AppDynamics scaled well up to around 3,000 agents. The performance deteriorated after that, while Dynatrace could support more than 10,000 agents. We were surprised that AppDynamics' scalability is not so good."
"This solution is expensive."
"AppDynamics is agent-based, so some customers are reluctant to install the agents in all their production environments. It would be helpful if they had an agentless version. It covers applications on the server, but the solution is weak on the network side. The agent is not deployed on the network components, so it cannot provide complete information about issues on the network layer."
"The integration with cloud services is still pending with AppDynamics. We would like the product to be serverless."
"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."
"Azure Monitor could improve the visualization aspect and integrate better with other third-party services."
"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?)."
"The solution needs better monitoring. It requires better log controls."
"Azure Monitor could improve network performance monitoring and make it more advanced."
"The biggest one is probably just the user interface. There could be more advanced logging at the database level. They can also improve their query builder to allow you to search for things better, but I last used it about a year ago. They might have already changed a ton of things in the newer versions."
"If it is configured incorrectly, you can end up with a huge bill."
"As a younger product it still has room for feature improvement and enhancement."
"They should include advanced logging on the database level in the Azure pool."
AppDynamics is ranked 5th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 155 reviews while Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews. AppDynamics is rated 8.2, while Azure Monitor is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of AppDynamics writes "Very good real-time monitoring capabilities, deep problem diagnosis, and transaction mapping". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "A powerful Kusto query language but the alerting mechanism needs improvement". AppDynamics is most compared with Dynatrace, Elastic Observability, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and Instana Dynamic APM, whereas Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver). See our AppDynamics vs. Azure Monitor report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability 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.