We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and ITRS Geneos 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 easy-to-use solution that integrates well with other Microsoft technologies. It is highly recommended due to its lower cost, ease of configuration and maintenance, and integration capabilities. On the other hand, while ITRS Geneos is highly customizable and flexible, it lacks thread-level monitoring and requires a complex initial setup that may require direct onsite support for several weeks. It may also be too expensive for non-banking and non-finance industries. Azure Monitor is a more affordable and user-friendly option for developers who want to integrate with Visual Studio and monitor cloud resources across multiple subscriptions, making it the preferred solution.
"In the last company where I worked about a year ago, it looked very simple."
"Provides an overview and high-level information."
"The dashboard allows us to easily track various metrics and quickly understand the overall health of our system."
"Azure Monitor is really just a source for Dynatrace. It's just collecting data and monitoring the environment and the infrastructure. It is fairly good at that."
"I am impressed by the reporting on the average eight ports that we get from this solution."
"The solution is quite stable."
"The solution integrates well with the Microsoft platform."
"The solution very easily integrates with Azure services and in one click you can monitor your resource."
"This solution has helped provide relief to existing Level 2 teams, allowing them to focus efforts on in-depth problem analysis."
"The ability to completely tailor and customize what it's monitoring is one of its strongest points. A lot of other monitoring tools are good at certain things, but one of my colleagues described it as the “Swiss Army Knife” of monitoring tools. It can do anything you want."
"The flexibility of the product is most valuable. It is highly customizable. If you put your mind to it and think of something you could do, there's a good possibility you can get it integrated within the console, if it's not readily available. The simplicity or ease of customization has been valuable."
"I always appreciate Geneos's stability and ease of use."
"This tool allows one to analyse, integrate and customize as per the systems and allows you to set your own rules."
"The great advantage of this tool is real-time monitoring."
"The clean and colorful UI and easy to use options like snooze and active times."
"ITRS can define rules to alert when certain parameters that you monitor breach a threshold. Rules can be configured to fire recovery actions automatically to clear the alert"
"The length of latency is terrible and needs to be improved."
"It might not have all of the capabilities we will need."
"This solution has fewer features than some of its competitors, so adding more features to it would make it better."
"They need to work with other cloud providers - not just Azure."
"Enhancing and reaching a level of detail that facilitates pinpointing and addressing issues at such a refined level within the application and database components would be helpful."
"I'd like the solution to do more around vulnerability assessment. It's lacking in the product right now."
"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."
"Azure Monitor could improve the visualization aspect and integrate better with other third-party services."
"The main feature that needs work is the Dashboard designer."
"There is one drawback to using lightweight data collection: we lack the feature of observability based on time series, such as historical model data. This makes it difficult to view data in ITRS. ITRS needs to improve this feature."
"At the moment Geneos is excellent and handling real time monitoring, however not great at doing historical reporting."
"Backward compatibility with deprecated features and in system documentation on what configuration areas are needed to be updated."
"I would really like to see something from the Geneos side to set up automated reporting from ITRS. We have to send reporting to management every day. To do that we have to check the dashboard and then we have to report whether everything is fine or not. In the future, I want something, some reporting kind of feature in ITRS, where it can collect all the data and mention what is green, what is amber, what is red in a report."
"t needs to have better middleware integration for things such as application and Microsft SQL servers."
"The dashboard feature is full of bugs. Grouping items results in a distorted dashboard."
"Their cloud monitoring solution needs to be improved. I have already given them the feedback that it's not capable of meeting the latest technology needs."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while ITRS Geneos is ranked 11th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 57 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while ITRS Geneos 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 ITRS Geneos writes "The flexible dashboard sets it apart from competing tools, but it's costly and lacks scalability". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Grafana, whereas ITRS Geneos is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Grafana, Prometheus and Datadog. See our Azure Monitor vs. ITRS Geneos 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.