Elastic Observability Reviews

Elastic Observability correlates different sources and teams to provide a single, unified, achievable goal for businesses. We offer Elastic Observation and security as part of our managed services to our customers.

Elastic Observability has helped in breaking the silos within our customers' environments, allowing different teams to work together rather than being in separate silos. It offers a single platform for role-based access administration, improving the recoverability time and issue resolution.

The most valuable feature is the integrated platform that allows customers to start from observability and expand into other areas like security, EDR solutions, etc. It is scalable and supports multitenancy, which is beneficial for MSPs.

Elastic Observability could improve asset discovery as the current requirement to push the agent is not ideal. Simplifying the parsing of logs and manual efforts would also be beneficial.

We have been using Elastic Observability for about one year.

Elastic Observability is really stable. I rate its stability as very high, eight out of ten.

The scalability part is yet to be fully evaluated in my experience. We have not yet tested scaling up, but Elastic Observability seems to have a good scale-out capability.

Customer service and support are good, though we haven't needed to reach out significantly as it has been stable.

Positive

I have experience with other solutions like VMware products, however, Elastic Observability's openness across various environments makes it stand out.

The initial setup with Elastic Observability is very straightforward and not complex.

Our team is small but skilled, consisting of five people who are familiar with deploying and managing Elastic Observability. We are hiring more staff as we grow.

Elastic Observability is cost-efficient and provides all features in the enterprise license without asset-based licensing. However, sizing and licensing information could be clearer.

I have worked with VMware solutions like CloudHealth and not hands-on experience with solutions like QRadar or Dynatrace, but Elastic’s broad ecosystem gives it an advantage.

I recommend Elastic Observability for its completeness of vision and wide ecosystem. It reduces the need for multiple products by offering a comprehensive solution.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

Machine learning is the most valuable feature of this solution.

Because it is an open, enhanced APR, no custom integrations are required. They're open, so it's an open-wear product that's simple to use and evaluate.

They need more skills in the market. There are not enough skills in the market.

It is not pervasive enough on the market, in my opinion. In other words, there isn't a big enough user base. 

The development of new features, functions, and releases, is not necessarily based on market demand. Which is why I can't rate it a 10 because of that. 

In my opinion, because there are not enough skills, the skills are still expensive. The software and the platform may be affordable, but the skills to deploy and manage it are expensive.

I have been managing teams that use Elastic Observability for 36 months.

It's an AWS platform as a service, so it's obviously as stable as AWS.

Elastic Observability is a scalable solution.

We have approximately 500 users in our organization.

I have contacted technical support and I would rate them a five out of five.

It is a Platform As A Service (PaaS). It's challenging because, in a platform world, you have to have your own abilities. You don't rely on the vendor for help unless something goes wrong.

I have not personally used but I have led teams that used App Dynamics, Dynatrace, Elastic, Splunk, ServiceNow, DXAPM, and Tivoli.

We implemented it in a complex environment, so whether the tool was simple or complicated was irrelevant. Because we worked in a complicated environment in a bank, if I say it was difficult, you will think the tool was complex, which isn't the case. But if I claim it was easy, it wasn't.

I would rate the initial setup a three out of five.

Our organization achieved the ROI.

Pricing is one of those situations where the more you use it, the more you pay. However, the cost is variable. And, if used properly, I believe it is rather inexpensive. If you use it badly, you must pay.

If one is very cheap, and five is very expensive, I would rate the pricing a two out of five.

We had many others and did a replacement. We decided on Elastic Observability because it was the most cost-effective.

My recommendation is to start small and gradually expand. Don't attempt to implement or distribute over a vast estate all at once. Begin small. 

Use Agile methodology. Basically, don't go large at first. Take a little bit and then grow.

I would rate Elastic Observability an eight out of ten.

We use it to handle significant volumes of data sourced from various network monitoring protocols like NetFlow and SNMP.

We're capable of monitoring fleet-based applications as well as custom applications effectively. This capability provides us with robust performance insights, enabling us to pinpoint and address issues with precision.

The ability to ensure that the data is searchable and maintainable is highly valuable for our purposes.

The interface could be improved. Currently, the aspect that impresses me the most is the AI functionality. However, the pricing for the AI-powered APM feature is quite steep.

I have been using it for two years.

We are satisfied with the stability, as we never faced any issue with it.

The scalability is excellent, and we're quite satisfied with it. It's quite straightforward for us.

The technical support is actually very good. We haven't encountered any issues with it because our engineers are proficient with Elastic.

We initially experimented with a couple of other systems before settling on Elastic. I can't recall the specific alternatives we explored. After conducting an initial Proof of Concept, we proceeded to production with Elastic, and we're currently satisfied with it.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We have been using the open-source version.

If compared with Splunk, which is known for its high cost, Elastic is freely available as open-source software. I prefer Elastic because of its affordability. However, I acknowledge that Splunk is also a robust platform, albeit at a significant expense.

I would recommend it. Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.

It offers end-to-end observability, the capability of monitoring and analyzing the entire stack, from the user experience to the low-level infrastructure. It enables troubleshooting and debugging by allowing us to trace issues through the entire system.

It is a powerful tool that allows users to collect and transform logs as needed, enabling flexible visualization and analysis.

Improving code insight related to infrastructure and network, particularly focusing on aspects such as firewalls, switches, routers, and testing would be beneficial.

I have used this solution for three years.

While there have been some stability issues, they are not considered major problems. I would rate it seven out of ten.

In terms of performance and scalability, it provides high efficiency and reliability. It can manage data without any issues with its scalability capabilities. I would rate it eight out of ten.

They provide a really good support. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

Based on previous experience, Dynatrace has been considered practical with good features, but its usage depends on the specific environment. On the other hand, Elastic is versatile and can be tested in any environment to determine its value. It can be configured according to the desired specifications.

The initial setup was complex. It involved significant administration and the implementing team faced many challenges.

The implementation and deployment process took about six months to complete.

Elastic Observability is cheaper than other similar solutions, such as Dynatrace. Its license calculation is based on various factors like data volume and physical infrastructure, particularly related to RAM capacity. It may also vary in different countries.

When considering technology, it is important to focus on its capabilities rather than viewing it solely as a tool. It requires to be constantly learning and adapting to different configurations. I would rate it seven out of ten.

We usually use the solution in our production environment to monitor production on Rancher. I'm a DevOps engineer.

The design is good and they provide great support with plenty of documentation available online.

Using this solution is quite complex and there's a steep learning curve if you've never used it before. 

I've been using this solution for a couple of months. 

The solution is stable. 

We have around 50 users, so the solution is reasonably scalable. 

We still use Instana, Grafana and Prometheus for the other environment. Elastic provides a better solution for our needs and has more features than the other solutions.

The initial setup took around a month or so because we are an enterprise company so there were some complex issues that we needed to solve. We don't really have a specific monitoring team for Elastic.

Licensing costs are reasonable and we definitely get our money's worth. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

Our clients use the product for monitoring and alerting.

What I like the most about the tool is that we have access to all solutions through it. The product has connectors to many services. It is very open.

The cost must be made more transparent. Sometimes, we create a cost plan, but it doesn’t match.

I have been working with the product for the last three years. I am working with the latest version.

The tool is stable. We have no problems. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten.

The technical support is good.

Positive

I rate the ease of setup a ten out of ten.

I rate the pricing a five out of ten. The product is not that cheap.

We resell the solution to our customers. It is a good solution. I like it. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

We are using Elastic Observability for monitoring.

The solution has been stable in our usage.

Elastic Observability is difficult to use. There are only three options for customization but this can be difficult for our use case. We do not have other options to choose the metrics shown, such as CPU or memory usage. 

I have been using Elastic Observability for approximately two years.

I rate the stability of Elastic Observability a ten out of ten.

We have approximately 10 people using the solution in my organization.

We use the solution daily.

I have not used the support from the vendor.

I have not used another similar solution to Elastic Observability.

We have a lot of Kubernetes clusters making the initial setup more difficult. If we only had one cluster of Kubernetes it would be simple. We have to do a lot of the setup manually. 

If someone had a simple environment the setup could be easier but it depends on the environment.

I rate the initial setup of Elastic Observability a five out of ten.

The price of Elastic Observability is expensive.

I rate the price of Elastic Observability an eight out of ten.

I rate Elastic Observability an eight out of ten.

Elastic Observability significantly improves incident response time by providing quick access to logs and data across various sources. For instance, searching for specific keywords in logs spanning over a month from multiple data sources can be completed within seconds.

I can quickly check connectivity for endpoints to identify whether network or endpoint issues are causing problems. Access to logs also allows me to monitor hardware status and identify any anomalies affecting performance.

The benefits of using the product are numerous. You can effectively monitor your environment and applications. You can track response times and network performance. It enables you to manage alerts and security rules, enhancing overall system security.

The tool's scalability involves a more complex implementation process. It requires careful calculations to determine the number of nodes needed, the specifications of each node, and the configuration of hot, warm, and cold zones for data storage. Additionally, managing log retention policies adds further complexity. The solution's pricing also needs to be cheaper. 

I have been using the product for six months. 

The product is indeed stable, but monitoring storage regularly is essential. Monitoring storage usage lets you track how many logs are collected daily. 

The product's technical support is great. Even the community forums are helpful, where users can post their questions or issues and receive responses

The tool's implementation is straightforward. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.