We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and Datadog based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Datadog finishes ahead of Azure Monitor. Users feel Datadog gives the best visibility, better integration, and helpful, timely support. The logs and error reporting are extremely useful to conduct analysis and root cause analysis. The setup, ease of use, and flexibility with dashboard creation and reporting are just some of the things that our users like best about Datadog.
"The solution integrates well with the Microsoft platform."
"The most valuable feature is the universality of their functionalities in all Azure services, including, software solutions."
"For me, the best feature is the log analysis with Azure Monitor's Log Analytics. Without being able to analyze the logs of all the activities that affect the performance of a machine, your monitoring effectiveness will be severely limited."
"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 solution's most valuable features are its ability to focus on delivery and maximizing the performance of applications and services."
"It is a robust, stable product."
"Azure Monitor is very stable."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"This spectrum of solutions has allowed us to track down bugs faster and more rapidly, which allows us to limit revenue lost during downtime."
"The ingestion points are unlimited and support customization. We haven't had anything yet that we haven't been able to integrate with it."
"The most valuable aspect is for us to have everything in one place."
"The most useful feature is the APM."
"Sometimes it's more user friendly for development teams. There are some parts of Datadog that are more understandable for development teams. For example, the APM in Datadog works more manually and works like the tools in New Relic or Grafana, or Elastic. It is easier to understand for software development teams."
"The solution has helped our organization with custom events to track specific cases."
"The fact that everything is under a single pane of glass is really valuable, as developers don't have to spend their time copying correlation IDs across tools to find what they need."
"I have found some of the most valuable features to be the way things all come together that gives us a point of view that is useful. The panel is very beautiful and customizable."
"We encounter some difficulties in monitoring the operating system on its own."
"n 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."
"In terms of pricing, Azure Monitor's billing based on data size can sometimes lead to increased costs, especially when developers need to purge data frequently. While there are mechanisms in place to track and manage this, there is room for improvement in terms of optimizing data pausing and related processes. Enhancements in this area could help mitigate potential billing concerns and provide a more seamless experience for users."
"When something goes down, we want the option to have automation in place to get it back up again as quickly as possible."
"I would like more transparency when we use the solution with another environment, like on-premises, or on another cloud environment, like AWS or GCP."
"Setting up this solution is complex. It's also missing the functionality of assigning alerts."
"The process of implementation needs to be easier."
"In my opinion, they should improve the overall user experience, especially when it comes to indexing and searching collective logs."
"Datadog needs more local Asia-Pacific support, and if they don't have a SaaS solution in Asia-Pacific, they should offer an on-prem version. I'm told that's not possible."
"Datadog could always lower the price!"
"If there were a more cost-effective manner of deploying the tool, we'd be more likely to adopt it more widely."
"There are things about it that we would like to be fixed, such as it is taking averages of average. This results in data that we don't expect."
"I want to applaud the efforts in making the UI extremely usable and approachable. My suggestion would be to take another look at how the menu structure is put together, however. Even after using the platform mostly every day for months, I still find myself trying to find a service or feature in the menus."
"Ingesting data from various sources to monitor the log metrics of the system can always improve so that, if something goes wrong, the right teams are alerted."
"The pricing is a bit confusing."
"We need more integration functionality, including certain metrics integration."
Azure Monitor is ranked 5th in Cloud Monitoring Software with 44 reviews while Datadog is ranked 1st in Cloud Monitoring Software with 137 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while Datadog is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "A powerful Kusto query language but the alerting mechanism needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". Azure Monitor is most compared with Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus, Grafana and New Relic, whereas Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, New Relic, AWS X-Ray, Elastic Observability and AppDynamics. See our Azure Monitor vs. Datadog report.
See our list of best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors and best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Monitoring Software 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.