We performed a comparison between Datadog and SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Datadog offers impressive features like interactive displays and data analysis, error detection and centralization of logs, ease of use for developers, and adaptability with AI and ML. SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor is praised for its straightforward installation process, user-friendly interface, robust monitoring abilities, and AppStack functionality for identifying and resolving problems. Datadog could enhance its usability, integration, user interface intuitiveness, learning curve, monitoring of external websites, SSL security, setup complexity, security features, and customization flexibility. SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor could benefit from improvements in stability, flexibility, ease of use, performance, integration, pricing, reporting feature, and code-level monitoring.
Service and Support: Customers have generally praised the availability and promptness of Datadog's customer service and support. However, there have been occasional instances of slow or unresponsive support, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor support services have received mixed feedback. Some customers have recommended enhancements in turnaround time and escalation procedures.
Ease of Deployment: Datadog's initial setup is considered user-friendly and simple, with support readily available. SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor does not require installation as it is a cloud solution, however, upgrades can be time-consuming.
Pricing: Some users find Datadog's setup cost to be expensive, while others find it reasonable compared to other solutions. The pricing model for Datadog is considered confusing and lacks documentation. SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor's pricing has received mixed reviews, with some finding it overpriced and others considering it reasonable.
Comparison Results: Datadog is preferred over SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor. Users praised Datadog for its user-friendly interface, easy setup, comprehensive dashboards, and reporting options, effective error reporting and log centralization features, and its ability to cater to the needs of development teams. Additionally, users appreciated the wide range of integrations available with Datadog and its flexibility in monitoring and analyzing data.
"Anything I've wanted to do, I found a way to get it done through Datadog."
"We've found it most useful for managing Rstudio Workbench, which has its own logs that would not be picked up via Cloudwatch."
"It has scaled great. I haven't run into any problems anywhere that I've used it. They have handled everything that we have needed them to."
"We have a better grasp of what is occurring during the deployment cycle. If something fails, we have an idea what has failed, where it has failed, and how it failed to better mitigate the situation."
"The Datadog suite has allowed us to easily integrate log collection into all of our services and quickly detect unexpected changes in system data to declare security incidents."
"Having a clear view, not only of our infrastructure but our apps and services as well, has brought a great added value to our customers."
"It brings in observability, monitoring, and alerting capabilities - all of which we need to operate at scale."
"The seamless integration between Datadog and hundreds of apps makes onboarding new products and teams a breeze."
"It is simple to implement and can provide fairly decent Windows-based monitoring, beyond simple SNMP. It is great for monitoring newbies and smaller shops."
"Manage Groups: The capability to group appropriate devices gives better visibility of sites, categories, or critical regions. The same can be used to represent a dashboard for higher management."
"The most valuable feature is the Access Rights Manager."
"The application dependency feature identifies issues between applications and servers or within the network where the application is hosted. It highlights related problems, whether related to packet processing or other issues, enabling the creation of alerts and reports accordingly."
"Hardware health: It allows for proactive monitoring of the hardware health and is a game changer."
"Monitoring the components on your devices with out of the box monitors or the ability to create new ones (SAM)"
"The features like trends, capacity planning, recommendations, and diagnostics are the main items I focus on for added value."
"This product can monitor application environments no matter where they reside and provides capabilities for deep insight into infrastructure."
"It would be ideal if the product offered a bit more monitoring from our dashboard."
"It can have an artificial intelligence component. Even though I can seamlessly look at end-to-end security, it would be better to have alerts and notifications powered by an AI engine. I am not sure if they have an AI component. We have not reached out to them or looked at it, but this is something that I keep on talking about within our company in terms of features. Such a feature would be good to have, and it would further optimize my Security Ops team's abilities."
"Lately, chat support has a longer waiting time."
"We need a lot of modules since we collect all data logs from all operating systems."
"When it comes to storing the logs with Datadog, I'm not sure why it costs so much to store gigabytes or terabytes of information when it's a fraction of the cost to do so myself."
"It would also be nice if we had more insight into our own usage of Datadog (agents and custom metrics). They provide a usage page which does help, but it is not in real-time."
"The sheer amount of products that are included can be overwhelming."
"The error traceability is an area that can be improved."
"The product does not explain why a problem occurred."
"Nodes in Azure are able to be monitored with the use of agents, but this does not apply to cloud service offerings that are not node based."
"SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor could improve the server monitoring and the web application monitoring features are not good. Microsoft SCOM has better server monitoring."
"They should incorporate more artificial intelligence. There should also be more predictive features."
"The tool’s report feature created issues for us. We needed to gain skills to use that feature. The tool’s customization is not easy since you have to reconfigure the whole system."
"Mapping interactions between systems."
"The stability, flexibility, and ease of use could be improved."
"An additional feature that would improve this solution is the ability to complete root cause analysis."
More SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor Pricing and Cost Advice →
Datadog is ranked 1st in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 137 reviews while SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor is ranked 18th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 38 reviews. Datadog is rated 8.6, while SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor writes "We use this product for base and application monitoring. ". Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, Azure Monitor, New Relic, AWS X-Ray and Elastic Observability, whereas SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor is most compared with Azure Monitor, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Nagios XI. See our Datadog vs. SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor 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.