Datadog Reviews

We use Datadog for application logs, error tracking, performance tracking, alerting, and overall production state surveillance. 

It helps us improve observability and ease of maintenance through better information for our support teams and their issue qualification. 

We also use dashboards to keep all the information at ready and easy to access. SLOs notably for our uptimes but also our feature usage. It also feeds our alerting for our on-call SREs into PagerDuty by launching alerts when specific parameters are exceeded.

Our usage of Datadog has allowed us to improve our observability at great lengths. We have been able to track pain points more easily with it, and be able to define custom metrics to track our user's usage of the features we roll out.

Being able to generate dashboards has given higher management a better view of our teams' work and has allowed for better client information by our sales team as they have a more transparent way ofdealing with our upcoming features.

Dashboards and their versatility are among the most valuable features. They allow us to have internal facing trackers of our application's issues, usages, and features. They also allow us to have a better understanding of how users react to new features, and to display more information to other teams or also clients through uptime SLOs, et cetera.

We also found the Synthetics Tests and especially the Browser Tests very helpful. It is a nicer way to create end-to-end tests in a more user-friendly way than through code. They are very valuable in saving time compared to code-based testing.

Documentation is also very clear and interesting.

We would like to see some versioning system for the Synthetic Tests so that we could have a backup of our tests since they are time-consuming to make and very easy to damage in a moment of error.

I look forward to seeing the next features that will be released.

I have been using the product for a year and a half. The company has been using it for longer. I don't know the exact details.

We have yet to have a large-scale problem with stability using Datadog. It's very satisfying.

The scalability is very good.

I've had only a few experiences with customer support, and it went well. They were fast!

Positive

We did not use a different solution previously.

I wasn't there for the initial setup.

I wasn't there for the initial setup.

I cna't speak to the ROI.

I don't give advice regarding that.

I wasn't part of the decision-making process.

It would be nicer if the pricing information was easier to find in the documentation. Sometimes it helps to get an overall idea of the cost of certain options.

We primarily use the solution for log management and application performance monitoring. We have been getting into using more solutions on Datadog, such as runbooks, monitoring, and dashboards. 

Another area that we've been investing some time in is the database monitoring. We've been able to get some relatively new employees onboarded into the tool, and they've been able to create some meaningful dashboards and reports without too much hand-holding at all. 

We plan on exploring the synthetics solution as well.

We are still working through fully rolling the service out to our employees. Those that have so far begun using it have found that it decreases the time required to investigate and troubleshoot production issues. 

We have found that we're able to get in and out of troubleshooting issues much more rapidly, which in turn, of course, enables us to spend more time on our products. We are still investigating other areas where other Datadog services could potentially be injected into our workflows.

Correlation between logs and APM has been the most important feature that we've found in Datadog to date. Previous solutions around log collection or APM instrumentation were rather cumbersome to connect. We previously needed to use different solutions for each which were not connected and required complex queries and a lot of time investment by key employees.

The search and filtering capabilities are rather helpful as well. The aggregation of all currently available properties has been great. It's excellent that available options drop as filters are refined. This allows for a nuanced view of available data.

We intend on exploring other products at Datadog, so this list may expand.

I've found that the documentation is lacking in certain regards. In going through sessions around certain services, the presenter expressed opinions on best practices that are not covered by documented examples. 

In taking these thoughts to the "experts," further research is required both by us and those working the table to come to a solution that meets our needs. If there were more documentation on best practices this may be easier to manage.

I've been using the solution for ten years. 

The solution overall seems rather stable.

The solution seems scalable. We just need to keep an eye on the costs as it scales.

Customer support has been ok, yet not great. We've had ticket resolution drag on for weeks.

Neutral

We previously used Scalyr for logs and switched due to APM linkage.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We handled hte setup in-house.

We've saved many developer hours by using Datadog. We plan on expanding our investment in this solution (and thus our return).

Pricing can be a bit of a sell internally. We've found it to be worth it, though.

We came from using other solutions.

We are trying to get a handle on observability. Currently, the overall health of the stack is very anecdotal. Users are reporting issues, and Kubernetes pods are going down. We need to be more scientific and be able to catch problems early and fix them faster.

Given the fact that we are a new company, our user base is relatively small, yet growing very fast. We need to predict usage growth better and identify problem implementations that could cause a bottleneck. Our relatively small size has allowed us to be somewhat complacent with performance monitoring. However, we need to have that visibility.

We are still taking baby steps with Datadog. Hence, it's hard to come up with quantifiable information. The most immediate benefit is aggregating performance metrics together with log information. Having a better understanding of observability will help my team focus on the business problems they are trying solve and write code that is conducive to being monitored, instead of reinventing the wheel and relying on their own logic to produce metrics that are out of context

The most useful feature is the APM. Being able to quickly view which requests are time-consuming, and which calls have failed is invaluable. Being able to click on a UI and be pointed to the exact source of the problem is like magic. 

I'm also very intrigued by log management, although I haven't had quite a chance to use it very effectively. In particular, the trace and span IDs don't quite seem to work for me. However, I'm very keen on getting this to work. This will also help my developers to be more diligent and considerate when creating log data.

As a new customer, the Datadog user interface is a bit daunting. It gets easier once one has had a chance to get acquainted with it, yet at first, it is somewhat overwhelming. Maybe having a "lite" interface with basic features would make it easier to climb the learning curve.

Maybe the feature already exists. However, I'm not sure how to keep dashboard designs and synthetic tests in source control. For example, we may replace a UI feature, and rebuild a test accordingly in a pre-production environment, yet once the code is promoted to production, the updated test would also need to be promoted.

We have just started using the solution and have only used it for about two months.

We're new at this. That said, so far, there haven't been any issues to report.

I have not had the opportunity to evaluate the scalability.

Customer support is full of great folks! We're beginning our Datadog journey, so I haven't had that much experience. The little I have had has been great.

Positive

This is all new. 

We used to work with New Relic. New Relic has an amazing APM solution. However, it also became cost-prohibitive

Since we are relatively greenfield, it was relatively painless to set up the product. 

Our in-house DevOps team did the implementation.

I don't know what the ROI is at this stage.

I'm not sure what the exact pricing is. 

So far, it's been great!

We use it mostly for logging log messages from our Kubernetes and EC2 instances, for example, system messages and errors. Also, we want log messages from our firewalls and other network infrastructure in case of network issues. We intend to use it for application logging, et cetera, to get insight into internal problems in the applications in Kubernetes pods. We want to use it for monitoring in case of system problems and hardware failures so that it can notify us.

It's good to have a single location for all the logs. If you have logs coming from a whole lot of sources, it makes it hard to find where the problem lies. 

We had to spend a lot of time logging into various systems and pursuing a billion different log files looking for something that stands out as a possible cause of the issue. That can take a lot of time and doesn't give much visibility into the possible interactions between systems.

Datadog has a lot of features to be able to drill down deep into the swath of logs that our platforms generate. 

It has a lot of ability to make fancy and deep searches using regular expressions and to graph them into useful and interesting dashboard graphs. 

The plethora of built-in/downloadable integrations make it much easier to set up for our platforms. Otherwise, we'd have to parse the log files ourselves, which would take a great deal of effort. Had to do it before when had to use an ELK stack for logging, which was painful.

Some of the interface is still confusing to use. It has many features, and it takes a lot of effort to figure out what they all mean. Maybe having tooltips or something would be helpful. Also, some of the integrations are better than others.

I've used the solution for a month.

The solution seems very stable.

Have used an ELK stack before. However, it took a lot of effort to maintain, and parsing the logs was difficult.

We implemented the solution in-house.

We use Datadog for general observability into our infrastructure, as well as running analytics queries for our SLI/SLO platform. This helps all of our teams be informed of how well their products are actually performing in production, and aim their efforts at the thing that will provide the highest ROI. 

We also use it for general monitoring and alerting during load tests and service releases to detect any issues related to the deployments. This helps us maintain our high contractual uptime promises to our clients.

It has drastically reduced the amount of time we spend on debugging issues and tracking down the root causes of incidents. What might have taken days or hours with separate vendors in the past (or even single vendors with terrible UI) is now quick and easy. 

We've often gone from detecting an incident to identifying the needed fix within ten minutes or less and covered multiple domains like APM, Logs, Database performance monitoring, etc., in just a few clicks. This is extremely powerful.

Distributed tracing is the most valuable feature. We have hundreds of microservices, and knowing how top-level requests weave throughout all of them is invaluable. 

At one glance, we can clearly see which service is slow and then switch over to the infrastructure view or container view to debug why the slowness is happening. This is true of all their other integrated products as well; the more you add, the more insights you get when looking at traces.

We also use RUM extensively. This helps us cover the last mile of application performance. Without it, we wouldn't know if our browser applications were functioning slowly for our users.

There is occasional UI slowness and bugs. While the Datadog UI is generally miles above its competitors, there are a few cases where it falls short or has started to slow down over time. They also occasionally make poor UI redesign choices. They should continue focusing on this area to maintain the high standard they started out with.

I've used the solution for five years.

We've never had major stability issues.

Scalability has never been an issue, although there is occasionally UI slowness.

Support via tickets is absolutely terrible. It's the one obvious bad spot for Datadog. If we didn't have direct relationships with many of their product managers, our experience would be much worse.

Negative

We previously used New Relic. It had a terrible UI and the integration between products was not great. Datadog is miles ahead of them and is continuing to increase that distance.

The initial setup is straightforward, and the docs are done well.

We managed the implementation in-house.

Our ROI is high.

I'd advise users to negotiate rates. Datadog's off-the-shelf rates are pretty high.

We have only used and looked into New Relic.

We primarily use the solution for monitoring and telemetry.

We use lots of log collections, log-based metrics, and dashboard visualization.  The logging, metrics, and APM are vital.  

My team focuses on the backend. Day-to-day monitoring includes observing metrics such as the CPU and memory until it gets too high. This solution provides an alert during the metric collection.  

APM and tracing are super useful. We use it for daily monitoring of CPU and memory. We can get alerts to tail to specific metrics.

We also find the tracing feature useful. We often run into bugs, and when a production issue happens, it is super useful to see the related services and sense where the problem is.

We would like to see smaller or shorter tutorials and video sessions. Also, the ability to provide a custom formula for monitoring is vital. Perhaps there can be more training materials on this. We often need to detect slow-running queries and slow network responses. We also focus a lot on the abuse of request limits. Having some form of rate limit features or metrics would be useful.  

Profiling could also be useful. Some services are CPU-intensive, and others are IO-intensive. Knowing where the bottleneck is, is crucial. 

We mostly use it to handle log aggregation, monitor our web application, and alert us on data pipeline failures. 

Our system is fully on AWS, and so we pipe in all of our Cloudwatch logs into Datadog to have a central place to index and search logs. 

Our web app is built on an Elastic Beanstalk backend, and we use the Datadog agent to keep track of all of the requests that hit our backend and all of their components. 

We also use the prebuilt AWS pipeline dashboards to monitor our batch jobs and lambdas.

Datadog has made it much easier to have a central place for people to look for logs and made it much easier to notify them of any elevated error rates or failures. 

It is also easier to get high-level views of platform health, whereas looking directly at AWS tends to provide very specific insight into particular surface areas or products. 

By having the whole team onboard onto Datadog, we also have a single source of truth that everyone can use when triaging and resolving incidents that occur across any surface area.

The ease of setting up metrics and alerting and integrating with Slack has significantly reduced the friction of keeping the team up to date on the platform's health. Before creating custom Cloudwatch metrics was never very intuitive, and also it was non-trivial to set up integrations with other services we use, especially Slack. 

It also provides a good way to gain the context needed when trying to fix issues, as it's a central place to look through logs, requests, AWS metrics, and more - overall contributing to the health of our platform.

The product is quite complex, and there are so many features that I either didn't know about or wasn't sure how to use.

One thing that could be improved is somehow surfacing interesting or relevant products that might be applicable given our infrastructure. 

Additionally, the billing can sometimes be confusing and opaque, especially around not making it obvious what the implications can be if you add different AWS integrations. This has caused some unexpected costs in the past due to engineers not understanding how Datadog pricing works.

We've used the solution for around two years.

This was the first solution we tried.

It is quite expensive, especially if you don't know how the pricing works.

Our clients use it for monitoring applications. Its deployment depends on our customer's use case. 

It is 100% cloud. We have got a multi-tenant environment, so we segment it out.

It helps us to be more proactive. We can help customers with their e-commerce applications for any networking issues. We can also help them in any area from a development standpoint. It could be a non-prod environment where they're going through testing and various functionalities. It helps them be able to be more successful with their deployments.

The visibility that it provides is valuable. It is helping in being proactive around incident management. It is helping us to be able to get more visibility into our customers' applications so that we can assist them at the application layer. We also provide them the infrastructure from an AWS standpoint. We are able to make sure that our customers are aware of certain critical things around the analytical piece of either the network or the application. We're able to call customers before they even know about the issue. From there, we can start putting together some change management processes and help them a bit.

It can have a more modernized pricing mechanism. We're actually working with them to figure out how to become more modular and have a better and more modernized pricing mechanism. The issue with Datadog is that you have to buy the whole suite of different products, and you kind of get stuck in the old utilization of 40% of their suite. Most organizations today break down between application development, networking, and security. Therefore, there should be a way to break down different modules into just app dev, infosec, networking, etc. Customers have various needs across their business lines, and sometimes, they're just not willing to have tools that they're not using 100%. AppDynamics is probably a little bit better in terms of being modular.

I have been using this solution for almost four years.

We haven't lost any customers for Datadog. It must be stable.

As long as you're willing to pay for 100% but utilize only 40%, it can scale and do anything you want. In an organization, its users are usually the app group, the security group, and the network group.

We're certified in Datadog, and we have our own internal engineers to support the customers. We handle steps two and three.

It is usually pretty complex. 

It has a module-based pricing model.

I would advise others to review the overall functionality. If you're looking for different APN tools, then Datadog is a good tool. If you're not looking for it to handle all aspects of your environment and your application from the security infrastructure aspect, there are other tools out there that you could possibly utilize for each one of those areas. 

We do a lot of proof of concepts in helping our customers understand the micro and macro pieces of deployment. We're able to be a true advocate and value-add for our customers in utilizing the tool.

I would rate Datadog a seven out of ten. This space is a very competitive space, and a lot of organizations are trying to figure out how to become better in the full life cycle of a deployment. There'll be a lot of changes for different companies going forward.