We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) 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 a cost-effective and user-friendly option for developers looking to monitor cloud resources and integrate with Visual Studio, according to user reviews. It is preferred over Splunk ITSI due to its lower cost, ease of configuration and maintenance, and strong integration with other Microsoft technologies. Splunk ITSI is praised for its powerful functionality and ease of use, but is considered more expensive and lacks out-of-the-box solutions for enterprise users.
"The solution's most valuable features are its ability to focus on delivery and maximizing the performance of applications and services."
"Good load and metrics gathering and very good analysis."
"The solution works well overall. It's easy to implement and simple to use."
"Azure Monitor's best features are its graphs and charts, the different visibility options, and reporting."
"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 solution integrates well with the Microsoft platform."
"Technical support is good and helpful...The initial setup is easy."
"The most valuable feature is that it's stable. It hasn't crossed any thresholds."
"The KPS used to automate the integration policy is the most valuable feature of Splunk ITSI."
"Splunk Episodes are valuable because it correlates and aggregates all the information, and you do not have one million events to look at and triage, so it is quite convenient."
"The flexibility to develop and consolidate many solutions into one platform is great."
"We save substantial time on monitoring tasks because we don't have to search for what we need. Everything is packed, so you can drill down to the end values by just doing the kit. We don't spend a lot of time on this. Splunk ITSI is easy to use and not time-consuming."
"Alerts and episodes are valuable to me."
"The feature that stood out to me most from Splunk IT Service Intelligence (ITSI) was automated dashboarding or reporting. The solution lists the severity level of issues, and the response times."
"The most valuable features are the mapping of the entities, which provides a comprehensive analysis, and the service analyzer for thresholding."
"ITSI's most valuable feature is that it's easy to integrate DLP."
"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."
"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."
"I'd like the solution to do more around vulnerability assessment. It's lacking in the product right now."
"The solution should have cross-connection or cross-communication between tech partners."
"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."
"The troubleshooting logs need improvement. There should be some improvement there. I have a hard time finding the right logs at the right times whenever there is an issue occurring."
"The solution's monitoring feature has limitations for analyzing multiple metrics."
"If it is configured incorrectly, you can end up with a huge bill."
"We have problems doing upgrades and operating alternate new versions."
"We also faced challenges relating to UI development."
"The problem becomes the price, as Splunk is an expensive product."
"Quality-of-life features have room for improvement."
"The cost of the license could be lower."
"I believe the refresh time should be faster."
"Predictive analytics, in terms of preventing incidents before they occur, still needs time to mature."
"The license cost is expensive."
More Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 45 reviews while Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) is ranked 11th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 30 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) is rated 8.2. 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 Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) writes "Helps improve our incident response time, and our mean time to resolve, but visibility is limited". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Grafana, whereas Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) is most compared with ServiceNow IT Operations Management, Dynatrace, Grafana, Splunk APM and AppDynamics. See our Azure Monitor vs. Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) 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.
