Datadog Reviews

We use the product for instrumentation, observability, monitoring, and alerting of our system. 

We have multiple environments and a variety of pieces of infrastructure including servers, databases, load balancers, cache, etc. and we need to be able to monitor all of these pieces, while also retaining visibility into how the various pieces interact with each other. 

Tracing data between components and user interactions that trigger these data flows is particularly important for understanding where problems arise and how to resolve them quickly.

It provides a lot of options for integrations and tooling to observe what is happening within the system, making diagnosis and triage easier/faster. 

Each user can set up their own dashboards and share them with other users on the team. We can instrument monitors based on various patterns that we care about, then notify us when an event triggers an alert with platforms such as Slack or PagerDuty. 

Our ability to rapidly become aware of problems focused on the symptoms being observed and entry points into the tool to rapidly identify where to investigate further is important for our team and our users.

The most valuable aspects of the solution include log search to help triage specific problems that we get notified about (whether by alerts we have configured or users that have contacted us), APM traces (to view how user interactions trace through the various layers of our infrastructure and services to be able to reproduce and identify the source of problems), general performance/system dashboards (to regularly monitor for stability or deviation), and alerting (to be automatically informed when a problem occurs). We also use the incident tools for tracking production incidents.

In some ways, the tool has a pretty steep learning curve. Discovering the various capabilities available, then learning how to utilize them for particular use cases can be challenging. Thankfully, there is a good amount of documentation with some good examples (more are always welcome), and support is very helpful. 

While DataDog has started adding more correlation mapping between services and parts of our system, it is still tricky to understand what is the ultimate root cause when multiple views/components spike. Additionally, there are lots of views and insights that are available but hard to find or discover. Some of the best ways to discover is to just click around a lot and get familiar with views that are useful, but that takes time and isn't ideal when in the middle of fighting a fire.

I've used the solution for about four years.

It seems stable.

It seems to scale well. Performance for aggregating or searching is usually very fast.

Technical support is helpful and pretty responsive.

Positive

We did not use a different solution. 

It's hard to say what ROI would be as I have not managed our system without it to compare to.

I don't manage licensing.

We did not evaluate other options. 

It's a great tool with new features and improvements continuously being added. It is not simple to use or set up, however, if you have the right personnel, you can get a lot of value from what DataDog has to offer.

We use the solution for monitoring microservices in a complex AWS-based cloud service.  

The system is comprised of about a dozen services. This involves processing real-time data from tens of thousands of internet connected devices that are providing telemetry. Thousands of user interactions are processed along with real-time reporting of device date over transaction intervals that can last for hours or even days. The need to view and filter data over periods of several months is not uncommon.  

Datadog is used for daily monitoring and R&D research as well as during incident response.

The query filtering and improved search abilities offered by Datadog are by far superior to other solutions we were using, such as AWS CloudWatch. We find that we can simply get at the data we need quicker and easier than before. This has made responding to incidents or investigating issues a much more productive endeavour. We simply have less roadblocks in the way when we need to "get at the data". It is also used occasionally to extract data while researching requirements for new features.

Datadog dashboards are used to provide a holistic view of the system across many services. Customizable views as well as the ability to "dive in" when we see someting anomalous has improved the workflow for handling incidents.    

Log filtering, pattern detection and grouping, and extracting values from logs for plotting on graphs all help to improve our ability to visualize what is going on in the system. The custom facets allow us to tailor the solution to fit our specific needs.

There are some areas on log filtering screens where the user interface can take some getting used to. Perhaps having the option for a simple vs advanced user interface would be helpful in making new or less experienced users comfortable with making their own custom queries.

Maybe it is just how our system is configured, yet finding the valid values for a key/value pair is not always intuitively obvious to me. While there is a pop-up window with historical or previously used values and saved views from previous query runs, I don't see a simple list or enumeration of the set of valid values for keys that have such a restriction.

I've used the solution for one year.

The solution is very stable.

The product is reasonably scalable, although costs can get out of hand if you aren't careful.

I have not had the need to contact support.

Neutral

We did use AWS CloudWatch. It was to awkward to use effectively and simply didn't have the features.

We had someone experienced do the initial setup.  However, with a little training, it wasn't too bad for the rest of us.

We handled the setup in-house.

Take care of how you extract custom values from logs. You can do things without thought to make your life easier and not realize how expensive it can be from where you started.

I'm not aware of evaluating other solutions.

Overall I recommend the solution. Just be mindful of costs.

From day one, we have seamlessly integrated our new product into Datadog, a comprehensive monitoring and analytics platform. By doing so, we are continuously collecting essential data such as host information, system logs, and key performance metrics. This enables us to gain deep insights into product adoption, monitor usage patterns, and ensure optimal performance. Additionally, we use Datadog to capture and analyze errors in real-time, allowing us to troubleshoot, replay, and resolve production issues efficiently.

It has proven invaluable in helping us identify early issues within the product as soon as they occur, allowing us to take immediate action before they escalate into more significant problems. This proactive approach ensures that potential challenges are addressed in real-time, minimizing any impact on users. Furthermore, the system allows us to measure product adoption and usage trends effectively, providing insights into how customers are interacting with the product and identifying areas for improvement or enhancement.

There isn't any single aspect that stands out in particular; rather, everything is interconnected and works together harmoniously. Each component complements the other, creating a cohesive system where data, logs, and metrics are seamlessly integrated. This interconnectedness ensures that no part operates in isolation, allowing for a more holistic view of the product's performance and health. The way everything binds together strengthens our ability to monitor, analyze, and improve the product efficiently.

At the moment, nothing specific comes to mind. Everything seems to be functioning well, and there are no immediate concerns or issues that I can think of. 

The system is operating as expected, and any challenges we've faced so far have been successfully addressed. If anything does come up in the future, we will continue to monitor and assess it accordingly, but right now, there’s nothing that stands out requiring attention or improvement. 

Datadog is too pricey when compared to its competitors, and this is something that its always on my mind during the decision-making process.

I've used the solution for nearly two years now.

Internally our primary usage of Datadog pertains around APM/tracing, logging, RUM (real user monitoring), synthetic testing of service/application health and state, overall general monitoring + observability, and custom dashboards for aggregate observability. We also are more frequently leveraging the more recent service catalog feature.

We have several microservices, several databases, and a few web applications (both external and internal facing), and all of these within our systems are contained within several environments ranging from dev, sit, eat, and production.

Datadog has had a massive impact on our department. Before, we had loose logging dumped into a sea of GCP logs with haphazard custom solutions for traceability between logs and network calls. Datadog has helped standardize and normalize our processes around observability while providing fantastic tools for aggregating insight around what is monitored regularly, all wrapped in an easy-to-use UI.

Additionally, a range of types of users exist within our department, each with its own positive impact on Datadog. DevOps leverages it to easily manage infra, developers leverage it to easily monitor/debug services and applications, and business leverages it for statistics.

Personally I've found the RUM (real user monitoring) to be above and beyond what I've worked with before. Client-side monitoring has always been on the short end of the stick but the information collected and ease of instrumentation provided by Datadog is second to none.

Having a live dynamic service map is also one of my favourite features; it provides real-time insights into which services/applications are connected to which.

We are also investigating the new API catalog feature set, which I believe will provide a high-value impact for real-time documentation and information about all of our shared microservices that other dev teams can use.

In production, we intend to use trace IDs generated by RUM to attach to support tickets when a user experiences a traceable network error, and we want to display this trace ID to the user so if they were to contact us about a specific issue, they can provide us an exact ID displayed to them back to us. Currently, this is not possible out-of-the-box client-side without inventing our own solution for capturing these trace IDs, such as shimming the native fetch or returning the ID from the service response.

I've used the solution for approximately two years across our department and around a year or so of it being used practically and fully integrated into our systems.

Aside from one very brief bad update from the Datadog team around RUM where they broke the native 'fetch' for node in an update to RUM (which was resolved quickly) as it used to -- and may still -- modified the global 'fetch'; Datadog as a whole solution has been highly stable.

It's easy to implement and scale provided a there's a solid IaC solution in place to integrate across your system.

The Datadog support team is prompt and helpful when tickets have been submitted from our end. When their support team have been unsure, they've properly reached out internally to the relevant SME to help answer any questions we've had prior.

Positive

I've personally dabbled with some other open-source observability and monitoring solutions; however, prior to Datadog, our department did not have any solutions other than log dumps to GCP.

The initial setup was straightforward from my own experience, helping integrate within the application and service levels; however, our DevOps team handled most of the infra process with minimal complaints.

We handled the solution in-house.

I personally am not involved in the decision around costing; however, I am aware that when we first set up Datadog, we explicitly configured our services/applications to have a master switch to enable Datadog integration so that we can dynamically enable/disable targeted environments as need due to the costs being associated on a per service basis for APM/logging/etc.

I was not involved in the decision-making regarding the evaluation of other options.

I highly recommend Datadog, and I would explore it for my own individual projects in the future, provided the cost is within reason. Otherwise, I would highly recommend it for any medium-to-large-sized org.

We use Datadog as our main monitoring platform across all environments, including production, staging, and development. 

It plays a crucial role in monitoring infrastructure performance, aggregating logs, and running synthetic and browser tests. Datadog helps us track critical system metrics like CPU, memory, and network traffic, allowing us to detect issues in real-time. 

Its log management and alerting features enable quick incident response, while synthetic monitoring ensures optimal user experience and service uptime by proactively identifying performance issues. We rely on browser tests to simulate real-world user interactions, ensuring that key workflows in our applications perform smoothly. 

Overall, Datadog allows us to maintain a high level of reliability and performance across our systems.

Datadog has significantly improved our ability to consolidate information into one central platform. Before implementing Datadog, our data and monitoring metrics were scattered across various systems and tools, making it difficult to get a unified view of our infrastructure and application health. This fragmented approach often led to inefficiencies, as we had to switch between different systems to gather relevant information, delaying our response to incidents. 

With Datadog, all our critical data—logs, metrics, and monitoring—is now integrated in one place, allowing us to easily correlate events, analyze performance, and quickly diagnose issues, greatly improving both operational efficiency and incident management.

The most valuable features we’ve found in Datadog are logging, API monitoring, infrastructure monitoring, and browser tests. 

Logging allows us to collect and centralize logs from across all our services, making it easier to troubleshoot issues and gain insights into application performance. 

API monitoring is crucial for ensuring the reliability and performance of our API endpoints, allowing us to detect issues proactively. 

Infrastructure monitoring gives us real-time visibility into our servers, containers, and cloud resources, helping us optimize performance and reduce downtime. 

Lastly, browser tests simulate real user interactions, ensuring that our web applications deliver a seamless experience by detecting any potential performance or functionality issues before they impact users. 

Together, these features provide a comprehensive monitoring solution, making Datadog an essential tool for maintaining system reliability and performance.

One area where Datadog could be improved is its pricing structure, which can sometimes make it cost-prohibitive to adopt new features. As we continue to scale, the costs associated with enabling more advanced monitoring capabilities, like additional integrations or more detailed data retention, can add up quickly. This makes it challenging for teams to justify the expense, especially when trying to utilize new features that could enhance monitoring and performance analysis.

Another improvement would be better cost transparency within the product’s GUI. Currently, it can be difficult to track how specific features or services are contributing to overall costs. If Datadog could provide more detailed, real-time insights into pricing directly within the interface—such as breakdowns of how much each feature or integration costs—it would help users manage budgets more effectively and avoid unexpected charges. A built-in budgeting tool or cost alerting system could also be useful, allowing organizations to make more informed decisions about what features to activate without the fear of overextending their budget.

Adding these features would give customers a clearer understanding of how to optimize their usage without overspending, making the platform even more accessible for teams that are cost-conscious but still want to take advantage of the full range of Datadog’s powerful capabilities.

I've used the solution for five years.

The solution is very stable.

It's very scalable. It can handle pretty much anything you throw at it.

Overall, support is very good and they have a responsive support team.

Positive

We previously had a range of open-source and in-house built tools. We switched to get everything in one place.

It was easy to understand and to implement. Datadog offers great documentation.

We implemented the solution in-house.

Beware of costs when using the platform. Set up alerting for unusual log volumes and set up rate limiting when possible.

We did evaluate logz.io.

It's a great product, although a bit expensive.

We primarily use the solution for application monitoring (APM, logs, metrics, alerts).

It's useful for active monitoring (static monitors, threshold monitors). We get a lot of value out of anomaly detection as well. SLOs and monitoring of SLOs have been another value add.

In terms of metrics, the out-of-the-box infrastructure metrics that come with the Datadog agent installation are great. We have made use of both the custom metrics implementation as well as the log-based metrics which are extremely convenient.

We also leverage Datadog for use of RUM and want to explore session replay.

It is easy to implement and scale applications with standardized visibility, monitoring and alerting

We get a lot of value out of passive and active monitoring. While different teams across our organization have used different services (metrics, logs, APM, RUM), almost all teams have been able to use the dashboards to report and track high-level metrics and active monitoring. 

Active monitoring (static monitors, threshold monitors) is great. We get a lot of value out of anomaly detection as well. SLOs and monitoring of SLOs have been another value add for our organization.

The APM and tracing provide visibility and the ability to get right to root cause issues while being able to deploy new services without much need for custom instrumentation quickly

The active monitoring (static monitors, threshold monitors) has been very helpful. We get a lot of value out of anomaly detection. SLOs and monitoring of SLOs have been extremely valuable.

The metrics and out-of-the-box infrastructure metrics that come with the Datadog agent installation are quite helpful to the organization. We have made use of both the custom metric implementation as well as the log-based metrics which are extremely convenient.

Datadog is so feature-rich that it is often hard to onboard new folks and tough to decide where to invest time. 

The APM is a perfect example of this. This feature alone has so much (profiling, tracing, span summary, flame graphs). I would love to see more of the insight and automation-focused features, such as the log patterns, where I can spend time more efficiently.

The cost of Datadog at scale can get very expensive very quickly. I would like to see a better usage/cost dashboard with breakdowns like the AWS cost explorer.

I've used the solution for three years.

We are using the solution for migrating out of the data center. Old apps need to be re-architected. We plan to move to multi-cloud for disaster recovery and avoid vendor lockouts. The migration is a mix between an MSP (Infosys) and in-house devs. The hard part is ensuring these apps run the same in the cloud as they do on-prem. Then we also need to ensure that we improve performance when possible. With deadlines approaching quickly, it is important not to cut corners which is why we needed observability.

The product has created a paradigm shift in how we deploy monitoring. Before, we had a one-to-one lookup in service now. This wouldn't scale, as teams wouldn't be able to create monitors on the fly and would have to wait on us to contact the ServiceNow team to create a custom lookup. Now, in real-time, as new instances are spun up and down, they are still guaranteed to be covered by monitoring. This used to require a change request, and now it is automatic.

For use, the most valuable features we have are infrastructure and APM metrics. The seamless integration between Datadog and hundreds of apps makes onboarding new products and teams a breeze. 

We rely heavily on the API crawlers that Datadog uses for cloud integrations. These allow us to pick up and leverage the tags teams have already deployed without having also to make them add them at the agent level. Then we use Datadogs conditionals in the monitor to dynamically alert hundreds of teams, and with the ServiceNow integration, we can also assign tickets based on the environment. Now, our top teams are using APM/profiler to find bottlenecks and improve the speed of our apps.

The real issue with this product is cost control. For example, when logs first came out, they didn't have any index cuts. This leads to runaway logs and exploding costs. 

It seems that admin cost control granularity is an afterthought. For example, synthetics have been out for over four years, yet there are no ways to limit teams from creating tests that fire off every minute. If we could say you can't test more than once every five minutes that would save us 5X on our bill.

I've been using the solution for about three years. 

The solution is very stable. There are not too many outages, and they fix them fast.

It is easy to scale. It's why we adopted it. 

Before premium support, I would avoid using them since it was so bad.

Neutral

We previously used App Dynamics. It isn't built for the cloud and is hard to deploy at scale.

The initial setup was not complex. We just had to teach teams the concept of tags.

We implemented the solution in-house. It was me. I am the SME for Datadog at the company.

We have seen an ROI. It has saved months of time and reduced blindspots for all app teams.

We'd advise new users to be careful with logs, and the APM as those are the ones that can get expensive fast.

We looked into Dynatrace. However, we found the cost to be high.

The solution is basically used for servers and applications.

The UI, basically, is the most valuable aspect of the solution. I really like the look and feel of the solution. It's not very distinctive now since other players have caught up, however, they were the first in the market to present such an effective UI. 

The many dozens of integrations that the solution brings out of the box are excellent.

It's easy to set up.

Deploying the agents is still very manual. 

Network monitoring could be better or rolled into this solution so that you do not have to buy a different product.

Customization of the tool itself should be taken into account. At the moment, although what they provide out of the box is good, they don't offer many customization possibilities. I know it's difficult, however, it's something that they would need to look at. When the customer gets some customization, they want customized requirements. We cannot do it. 

I've been dealing with the solution for five years. 

It's quite stable. I have never had an issue in regard to reliability, so it's very stable.

It's very scalable. I have not reached the limits at any time, never in the solution. I've never seen any performance degradation in large environments. I would say it's very scalable.

Each client has its own instance. We do not share instances with multiple customers. There's usually between 20 and 30, depending on the customer.

I never use technical support, to be honest.

The initial setup for the solution itself is quite straightforward. You just set it up and that's it. However, when it comes to, for instance, deploying the agents to the servers, or at least the target machines, it's still a manual task. They still do not have centralized management of the FD agents, which basically delays the deployment of the solution. It's very manual still.

How long it takes to deploy is difficult to pin down. It will vary based on the environment size. Obviously, if it's ten servers, it will basically take half an hour or one hour. If it's 5,000, obviously, besides the number of notes, other considerations will need to be taken into account. If t's a large environment, it will take much longer. We would need to basically develop a solution, or an effective process to deploy the agent and configure them in a standardized manner. This is something that the tool itself or the tool provider does not offer out of the box. You need to build it. That's a drawback.

How many people you need for the deployment and maintenance processes depends on the environment's size and geographical area. On average,  I would usually require for every 500 notes, one resource for implementation. Then for overall support, I usually put one resource per 1500.

Before, the ROI was much higher as you would not have to compete with any kind of tool since they were very good in the space. However, with time, other companies have picked up the slack. Now, you have other tools which provide a higher ROI. I cannot give a specific ROI percentage since I don't use it for personal use with deployment. We deploy it on behalf of customers. Obviously, depending on the deal, depending on the size, and the ROI will vary. If people are looking for a global monitoring solution in the same tool as Datadog network monitoring, they are always hindered as Datadog does not provide an adequate solution for it. That kind of decreases the ROI since you still need to get another tool to do the network monitoring.

The licensing is a bit complicated. When you pay for it on a note basis, that's perfectly fine. However, when you put log analytics on top of it, it's based on traffic. This is actually an issue. It gets complicated.

I'm providing Datadog. I'm a retailer.

I would recommend the solution. 

I would suggest if their environment is in the cloud, companies have their environments in the public cloud, such as GCP, Azure, or AWS. Datadog is a very good candidate to provide an overview of the monitoring. If you want to consider a hybrid solution where systems and servers and applications also provide a good solution and have a lot of APM capabilities, the only drawback will be network monitoring. When you grab a tool that you want to basically monitor the entire environment at a single point of contact, with Datadog, it's possible, however, there's not an effective tool to do network monitoring.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.