We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Azure Monitor is a cost-effective and user-friendly option for developers looking to monitor cloud resources and integrate with Visual Studio, according to user reviews. It is preferred over Splunk ITSI due to its lower cost, ease of configuration and maintenance, and strong integration with other Microsoft technologies. Splunk ITSI is praised for its powerful functionality and ease of use, but is considered more expensive and lacks out-of-the-box solutions for enterprise users.
"It is a move-in powerful feature compared to other market-leading tools."
"For me, the best feature is the log analysis with Azure Monitor's Log Analytics. Without being able to analyze the logs of all the activities that affect the performance of a machine, your monitoring effectiveness will be severely limited."
"One of the most useful aspects of this solution is the out-of-the-box functionality on all areas, especially on Application Insights, zero instrumentation, and artificial intelligence for event correlation."
"Among the valuable features of this solution, Application Insights stands out as one of the most significant. It provides insights into application performance and helps identify issues and bottlenecks."
"Azure Monitor gives us the observability to check everything that we have in the cloud."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Good load and metrics gathering and very good analysis."
"The tools for logs and metrics are pretty good and easy to use."
"The most valuable features are the service analyzer and Glass Tables."
"The glass tables are very helpful."
"The modeling required to setup ITSI has been very helpful in providing us a better understanding and a logical view of our services. The modeling is flexible and can be as granular or high level as our needs dictate."
"The solution is easy to scale."
"The KPS used to automate the integration policy is the most valuable feature of Splunk ITSI."
"In my opinion, Splunk IT Service Intelligence (ITSI) is better than QRadar. With the help of Splunk, we can get results."
"Customers have noted the solution helps streamline incident management."
"The flexibility to develop and consolidate many solutions into one platform is great."
"In terms of pricing, Azure Monitor's billing based on data size can sometimes lead to increased costs, especially when developers need to purge data frequently. While there are mechanisms in place to track and manage this, there is room for improvement in terms of optimizing data pausing and related processes. Enhancements in this area could help mitigate potential billing concerns and provide a more seamless experience for users."
"If it is configured incorrectly, you can end up with a huge bill."
"Azure Monitor could improve the visualization aspect and integrate better with other third-party services."
"As a younger product it still has room for feature improvement and enhancement."
"The default interface should be improved."
"The monitoring of Kubernetes clusters needs improvement to be on par with competitors."
"They should include advanced logging on the database level in the Azure pool."
"This solution has fewer features than some of its competitors, so adding more features to it would make it better."
"Microservices is the only area where Splunk ITSI can be improved. When things come from one EC2 instance to another, there's a lack of exposure to microservices, so we can't know what's happening. Apart from that, it's doing pretty well."
"We experience occasional delays in receiving solutions from Splunk technical support. Splunk's support for P3 cases seems inadequate, as they frequently switch support personnel. For instance, in a single P3 case, we had three different technical support representatives assigned. We were ultimately forced to escalate the issue to our account manager to get it resolved. In essence, we never receive complete support from a single point of contact; instead, the support team keeps changing, necessitating us to explain the problem from scratch each time."
"We'd like them to show more inputs on the dashboard."
"It could be a little easier to use with the thresholding. We've struggled a little bit with thresholding."
"It would be advantageous to enhance the dashboard by incorporating sections for monitoring, service health, and a filter for the KPIs."
"Quality-of-life features have room for improvement."
"The end-to-end visibility in Splunk ITSI is limited and has room for improvement."
"Some of our customers occasionally require the development of the connectors when there are no native connectors so that we can develop in Python or for customer slash comments as well. If they could adjust that, it would be ideal."
More Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) is ranked 12th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 30 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) is rated 8.2. 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 Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) writes "Helps improve our incident response time, and our mean time to resolve, but visibility is limited". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Grafana, whereas Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) is most compared with ServiceNow IT Operations Management, Grafana, Dynatrace, Splunk APM and PRTG Network Monitor. See our Azure Monitor vs. Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) 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.