We performed a comparison between Grafana and VMware Tanzu Observability by Wavefront based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Grafana offers a more customizable and visually appealing experience with good integration and an open source nature, at a more moderate pricing model with a helpful community, making it the preferred solution. While VMware Tanzu Observability is praised for ease of deployment and integration with multiple solutions, it has concerns with its consumption-based billing model, high license costs, and difficulty in customizing dashboards.
"It is a stable solution."
"It excels in providing comprehensive details when there are downtimes or fluctuations, offering thorough reports."
"The best thing about Grafana is the visualization. The colors and the ease of use make it very user-friendly."
"The most valuable aspect is customization. There are many customizations possible, so I like that."
"Plugin: Connecting Grafana to multiple APIs of leading monitoring tools and alerting tools."
"This solution provides valuable insights into the health of our infrastructure in real time."
"The best feature was the creation of graphs and trends."
"Grafana's built-in integration with third-party tools, databases, and MQs is an amazing feature."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are its ease of use and its ease of implementation."
"The features I find most valuable is the querying and alerting capabilities."
"Tanzu itself, integrated with multiple solutions, bestows support and security upon a container platform, especially when it comes to managing open-source container platforms such as Kubernetes."
"This solution allows me to have true visibility for any metrics when it comes to my cloud, and private."
"VMware comes with a support team, and if you have trouble, you can easily create a ticket, and VMware will help you. Therefore, the best aspect is the support."
"No issues with stability."
"The solution is great for virtualization and preparing the infrastructure in Tanzu to test products. It's very fast and has good visibility."
"For us, the ease of deployment in combination with TMZ was the most important part because we don't have to manually deploy a complex monitoring solution. We can more or less do that with the click of a button, and we are not dependent on the developers to provide us with all the necessary features and functions to make that work. We can just deploy it on a workload cluster and monitor at least a good part of the workload. If we want to go into detail, we clearly need to make changes, but for a good part of application monitoring, it gives us good insights."
"If there was an issue on one node, we couldn't drill down and see all the issues on other nodes."
"There are not a lot of plugins for financial market monitoring."
"Its interface could be more accessible."
"I find issues with Grafana. For example, I am unable to open some services there. Then, we have to open ten different tabs to get it fixed. And it's annoying when there's something going on; we want to check Grafana, and it throws four different errors."
"The main drawback is the necessity for endpoint monitoring."
"The product's configuration for saving files could be improved."
"The solution has room for improvement with a better API to help automate the construction of the dashboards easier."
"I had issues with the solution's configuration part."
"The implementation is a long process that should be improved."
"I would like to see integration with Kubernetes cluster and APIs so that you can manage the entire stack."
"Its billing model is consumption-based. I understand the consumption-based model, but it is not necessarily easy to estimate and guess how many points or how much we are going to consume on a specific application up until we get to that point. So, for us, it would be helpful to have more insights or predictability into what we can expect from a cost perspective if we are starting to use specific features. This can potentially also drive our consumption a bit more."
"The main problem I have is that the license cost is very high."
"It could use a URL document server. Everything in the market is moving towards automation and everybody's looking for the single click operations as well relational data locality."
"The documentation and integration with Kubernetes could be improved."
"In the new version, I would love to see more prediction capabilities. It would be great if one could see the alerts get a little more enriched with information and become more human-friendly instead of the technical stuff that they put in there. I think those would be really awesome outcomes to get."
"The initial setup should be easier and more seamless."
More VMware Aria Operations for Applications Pricing and Cost Advice →
Grafana is ranked 6th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 39 reviews while VMware Aria Operations for Applications is ranked 33rd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 9 reviews. Grafana is rated 8.0, while VMware Aria Operations for Applications is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Grafana writes "Agent-free with great dashboards and an active community". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware Aria Operations for Applications writes "Easy to deploy, worth the money, and helpful for uptime monitoring and performance insights". Grafana is most compared with New Relic, Sentry, Azure Monitor, Elastic Observability and Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver), whereas VMware Aria Operations for Applications is most compared with Dynatrace, Zabbix, Datadog, AppDynamics and ServiceNow IT Operations Management. See our Grafana vs. VMware Aria Operations for Applications 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.