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

Avada Software Infrared360 vs Azure Monitor comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

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

Avada Software Infrared360
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
77th
Average Rating
8.8
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (5th), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (11th), Server Monitoring (36th)
Azure Monitor
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
4th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
54
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Monitoring Software (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Avada Software Infrared360 is 0.1%, up from 0.1% 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

it_user685326 - PeerSpot reviewer
An offsite team performs a daily infrastructure health check and sends reports to the technical/management teams.
Administration, Monitoring, and Delegation are the most valuable features of the solution. * Administration: It provides a centralized audit trail of all the infrastructure changes. * Monitoring: It gives the ability to integrate with my company's global notification system, and the ability to proactively automate corrective actions. * Delegation: It allows non-technical users to inspect their individual components within the total infrastructure without disturbing other components and without bothering the technical teams.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Monitoring that ties into our incident management system"
"The administration piece makes it very easy to do MQ administration. It gives us a lot more flexibility and capabilities."
"It allows non-technical users to inspect their individual components within the total infrastructure without disturbing other components and without bothering the technical teams."
"It has role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems."
"It's what we use for monitoring our MQ system, so the features that they provide are just really, really good."
"We have easily created use case testing harnesses for specific flows that incorporate various message types."
"The feature that I found most valuable in Azure Monitor is its monitoring abilities. With Azure Monitor, you are able to monitor all of your cloud resources across multiple subscriptions in one dashboard and create solution-specific alerts that can trigger an email to the team responsible for that specific solution."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the alert system, which can be set according to our metrics. The integration is smooth."
"The most valuable functions of Azure Monitor for our clients are its ability to monitor CPU usage and detect any potential issues before they escalate into actual problems. This helps in proactively addressing issues and preventing disruptions in our services. Additionally, Azure Monitor's integration with Azure for implementation has been quite straightforward and easy to manage."
"The solution works well overall. It's easy to implement and simple to use."
"Good load and metrics gathering and very good analysis."
"Azure Monitor is very stable."
"Azure Monitor is useful because of the useful application insights and telemetry, such as metrics and logs."
"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."
 

Cons

"The UI can be cumbersome - but we are still using the Viper interface and we have not had the time to check out the Alloy interface which is supposed to be much improved."
"We desire a dashboard that could accumulate BOQ lengths per tenant on one screen for all tenants."
"We are still working with the FTE/MFT subscription monitoring and reporting functionality. That is an area in which we would like to see further development taking place."
"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic. The competing products have similar problems."
"One area where they could improve is with their documentation. Some sections are not up to date with new release information and providing additional samples in some areas would be very helpful."
"Some of the graphics in the interface could be improved. It's pretty basic. Some interfaces are not up to what you're used to seeing on other, more Windows-like tools."
"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."
"Lacks information including details related to where problems lie."
"The pricing model could be more flexible."
"Azure Monitor could improve network performance monitoring and make it more advanced."
"No improvements are needed from my perspective."
"The scalability could be improved as there are some limitations."
"The default interface should be improved."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Because the licensing is at the QMGR level, you need to have at least a small cushion of licenses for occasional enterprise needs."
"Start small, then increase licensing later as per your demand."
"Avada Software's licensing metric is very good because the license fees are based on the number of connections (which have not increased for us very much over the years) rather than the CPU processing power (which increases significantly whenever our hardware is upgraded) or the number of users (which has increased for us a lot since our original purchase)."
"Our internal budget calculation model incorporates the pricing per endpoint for any new projects. However, as our footprint for distributed queue managers shrinks as part of our shared middleware hub deployment, the initial licensing and support costs have been reduced over the last five years."
"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."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
"Besides standard licensing fees the customer needs to additionally pay based on the ingested data size"
"The solution is a pay-as-you-go consumption service and is the least expensive in the market."
"The tool's pricing is very good. I could say that Microsoft offers different cost models, which are listed on the product's website."
"Since we are using the basic set, it is more cost-effective compared to other third-party APM solutions."
"The Azure Insight is a little bit expensive."
"The solution is expensive, but it is worth the price."
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
41%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Hospitality Company
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

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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...
 

Also Known As

Infrared360
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

USBank, Southwest Airlines, Visiting Nurse Services of New York, Aon Hewitt, Parker Hannifin,  Cantonal Bank of Zurich (ZKB), Hagemeyer NA, and many others
Rackspace, First Gas, Allscripts, ABB Group
Find out what your peers are saying about Avada Software Infrared360 vs. Azure Monitor and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.