We performed a comparison between AppDynamics and Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Google Cloud's operations suite is the preferred choice over AppDynamics due to its popular monitoring feature, reliable logging and tracing, and easy-to-use interface. Users recommend enhancements in additional metrics and tools, stability, and automation. The technical support is highly regarded and the setup process is generally simple.
"The most valuable feature is having our services being available and healthy."
"The best feature of AppDynamics is the analytics, which gives us the business insights of the application."
"The AppDyniamics technical support is good. We haven't had any problems with them. They answer very quickly."
"I like that AppDynamics allows every organization to have what they want to see, like for my organization, we're able to customize the dashboard to show us details of what we want to see in our transactions."
"It's made it easier to collaborate across teams; be able to have the same data immediately in front of you just by sharing a URL."
"The ability to check parameters for microservice applications is most valuable. It is important for me. I can manually create new business transactions for applications and individually monitor business transactions. I can also use a lot of extensions. It has a lot of extensions to monitor other third-party applications, such as NoSQL applications, memory cache applications, Kafka applications, and Couchbase applications. It is very useful. We are also using the end-user monitoring site to follow all end-user activities. It is important for us to check the errors on the customer site."
"In AppDynamics, everywhere I go, there's some sort of grouping and aggregation function, or there's some sort of timeline that lets me zero in more quickly on the traces that I need. They go to more pains to aggregate and bubble the important ones to the top. That removes a lot of manual work."
"The most valuable feature is the detailed statistics, like the consumer count, for the ActiveMQ server."
"The features that I have found most valuable are its graphs - if I need any statistics, in Kubernetes or Kong level or VPN level, I can quickly get the reports."
"Offers a valuable logging transport feature"
"Google's technical support is very good."
"It's easy to use."
"The cloud login enables us to get our logs from the different platforms that we currently use."
"The most valuable feature is the multi-cloud integration, where there is support for both GCP and AWS."
"We find the solution to be stable."
"Provides visibility into the performance uptime."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pros →
"AppDynamics's agent management could be improved."
"One area for improvement is the MST model. It would be more helpful if it could be offered as a managed service provider model with more multi-tenancy and features."
"We would love to see support for more types of agents in the mainframe world."
"AppDynamics lacks integration with cloud technology. It probably isn't a good fit for emerging enterprises because it's an on-premise solution, and many newer companies are moving to the cloud. AppDynamics' on-premise technology works reasonably well, but it doesn't have cloud features."
"AppDynamics is dealing with a lot of products and technologies, so we need to have clear documentation."
"There are many KPIs that are not available in AppDynamics."
"The UI could use a little help."
"I think I would like to see a better way to deploy and upgrade the machine agents that we use. Currently, we have to use SCCM, and that might just be our environment with the customer."
"It could be more stable."
"It could be even more automated."
"The logging functionality could be better."
"Lacking sufficient operations documentation."
"It is difficult to estimate in advance how much something is going to cost."
"The process of logging analytics can be improved"
"If I want to track any round-trip or breakdowns of my response times, I'm not able to get it. My request goes through various levels of the Google Cloud Platform (GCP) and comes back to my client machine. Suppose that my request has taken 10 seconds overall, so if I want to break it down, to see where the delay is happening within my architecture, I am not able to find that out using Stackdriver."
"This solution could be improved if it offered the ability to analyze charts, such as a solution like Kibana."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Cons →
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pricing and Cost Advice →
AppDynamics is ranked 5th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 155 reviews while Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is ranked 27th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 10 reviews. AppDynamics is rated 8.2, while Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AppDynamics writes "Very good real-time monitoring capabilities, deep problem diagnosis, and transaction mapping". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) writes "Good logging and tracing but does need more profiling capabilities". AppDynamics is most compared with Dynatrace, Elastic Observability, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic, whereas Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is most compared with AWS X-Ray, Datadog, Azure Monitor, New Relic and Amazon CloudWatch. See our AppDynamics vs. Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) 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.