We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and IBM Application Performance Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Azure Monitor is a very easy-to-use product in the cloud environment."
"The solution integrates well with the Microsoft platform."
"The dashboard allows us to easily track various metrics and quickly understand the overall health of our system."
"The most valuable features of Azure Monitor are the login analytics workspace and we can write any kind of custom queries in order to receive the data that is inserted into the login analytics workspace, diagnostic settings, et cetera."
"We like this searchability and availability of the data."
"In the last company where I worked about a year ago, it looked very simple."
"The solution is quite stable."
"The solution works well overall. It's easy to implement and simple to use."
"Because we have partnerships with other partners, I can share a bit about what I've noticed with IBM APM compared to other vendor solutions. Specifically, with IBM, the visibility into detailed process information is more tangible. On the OS level, APM displays all processes (or the top 10 processes) that are consuming CPU or resident memory. This is the most important thing that is not always available with other vendors."
"I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten."
"The initial setup was straightforward and took minimal effort."
"It's easy to use."
"The transaction tracking feature from IBM is the most important feature for us. It is something that provides a terrific value for us and our clients. It has a lot of data sources and agents that are collectors. It is also stable."
"The most valuable feature is the breakdown that it provides, such as a description of the fields for a particular transaction."
"IBM Application Performance Management helped us increased our response time by 80% and cost 60% less."
"The default interface should be improved."
"The process of implementation needs to be easier."
"Azure Monitor could improve the visualization aspect and integrate better with other third-party services."
"Setting up this solution is complex. It's also missing the functionality of assigning alerts."
"There are a lot of things that take more time to do, such as charting, alerting, and correlation of data, and things like that. Azure Monitor doesn't tell you why something happened. It just tells you that it happened. It should also have some type of AI. Environments and applications are becoming more and more complex every day with hundreds or thousands of microservices. Therefore, having to do a lot of the stuff manually takes a lot of time, and on top of that, troubleshooting issues takes a lot of time. The traditional method of troubleshooting doesn't really work for or apply to this environment we're in. So, having an AI-based system and the ability to automate deployments of your monitoring and configurations makes it much easier."
"As a younger product it still has room for feature improvement and enhancement."
"This solution has fewer features than some of its competitors, so adding more features to it would make it better."
"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."
"It's still missing some platforms. For example, if you look to applications itself, it is missing the interface."
"The stability is not great and should be better."
"Its web user interface is a little bit old in comparison to other solutions, such as New Relic, and it should be improved. Its scalability and technical support should also be improved. Currently, it is scalable, but only in a vertical way. They provide good technical support, but the initial steps for a new case can be improved to fasten the resolution process."
"The demo that was provided to us is not working very well. At times, there are errors."
"With APM, we noticed that the agent can cause a lot of issues for the application, making the agent very unreliable. Many issues are happening, and we've had to discuss it with support to try and get a fix. It affects application availability, and sometimes actions fail because of the agent, degrading the performance of the application."
"They should focus on potentially enhancing the dashboard to make it more contemporary and adding some customization options. Furthermore, there might be room for improvement in the pricing policy."
"Technical support can be slow and needs improvement."
More IBM Application Performance Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while IBM Application Performance Management is ranked 54th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 7 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while IBM Application Performance Management is rated 6.4. 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 IBM Application Performance Management writes "A multi-functional solution but has poor stability and performance-related issues". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Grafana, whereas IBM Application Performance Management is most compared with Instana Dynamic APM, Dynatrace, BMC Compuware Strobe, IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager and AppDynamics. See our Azure Monitor vs. IBM Application Performance Management 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.