Datadog Reviews

We primarily use the solution for log management and application performance monitoring. We have been getting into using more solutions on Datadog, such as runbooks, monitoring, and dashboards. 

Another area that we've been investing some time in is the database monitoring. We've been able to get some relatively new employees onboarded into the tool, and they've been able to create some meaningful dashboards and reports without too much hand-holding at all. 

We plan on exploring the synthetics solution as well.

We are still working through fully rolling the service out to our employees. Those that have so far begun using it have found that it decreases the time required to investigate and troubleshoot production issues. 

We have found that we're able to get in and out of troubleshooting issues much more rapidly, which in turn, of course, enables us to spend more time on our products. We are still investigating other areas where other Datadog services could potentially be injected into our workflows.

Correlation between logs and APM has been the most important feature that we've found in Datadog to date. Previous solutions around log collection or APM instrumentation were rather cumbersome to connect. We previously needed to use different solutions for each which were not connected and required complex queries and a lot of time investment by key employees.

The search and filtering capabilities are rather helpful as well. The aggregation of all currently available properties has been great. It's excellent that available options drop as filters are refined. This allows for a nuanced view of available data.

We intend on exploring other products at Datadog, so this list may expand.

I've found that the documentation is lacking in certain regards. In going through sessions around certain services, the presenter expressed opinions on best practices that are not covered by documented examples. 

In taking these thoughts to the "experts," further research is required both by us and those working the table to come to a solution that meets our needs. If there were more documentation on best practices this may be easier to manage.

I've been using the solution for ten years. 

The solution overall seems rather stable.

The solution seems scalable. We just need to keep an eye on the costs as it scales.

Customer support has been ok, yet not great. We've had ticket resolution drag on for weeks.

Neutral

We previously used Scalyr for logs and switched due to APM linkage.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We handled hte setup in-house.

We've saved many developer hours by using Datadog. We plan on expanding our investment in this solution (and thus our return).

Pricing can be a bit of a sell internally. We've found it to be worth it, though.

We came from using other solutions.

We are trying to get a handle on observability. Currently, the overall health of the stack is very anecdotal. Users are reporting issues, and Kubernetes pods are going down. We need to be more scientific and be able to catch problems early and fix them faster.

Given the fact that we are a new company, our user base is relatively small, yet growing very fast. We need to predict usage growth better and identify problem implementations that could cause a bottleneck. Our relatively small size has allowed us to be somewhat complacent with performance monitoring. However, we need to have that visibility.

We are still taking baby steps with Datadog. Hence, it's hard to come up with quantifiable information. The most immediate benefit is aggregating performance metrics together with log information. Having a better understanding of observability will help my team focus on the business problems they are trying solve and write code that is conducive to being monitored, instead of reinventing the wheel and relying on their own logic to produce metrics that are out of context

The most useful feature is the APM. Being able to quickly view which requests are time-consuming, and which calls have failed is invaluable. Being able to click on a UI and be pointed to the exact source of the problem is like magic. 

I'm also very intrigued by log management, although I haven't had quite a chance to use it very effectively. In particular, the trace and span IDs don't quite seem to work for me. However, I'm very keen on getting this to work. This will also help my developers to be more diligent and considerate when creating log data.

As a new customer, the Datadog user interface is a bit daunting. It gets easier once one has had a chance to get acquainted with it, yet at first, it is somewhat overwhelming. Maybe having a "lite" interface with basic features would make it easier to climb the learning curve.

Maybe the feature already exists. However, I'm not sure how to keep dashboard designs and synthetic tests in source control. For example, we may replace a UI feature, and rebuild a test accordingly in a pre-production environment, yet once the code is promoted to production, the updated test would also need to be promoted.

We have just started using the solution and have only used it for about two months.

We're new at this. That said, so far, there haven't been any issues to report.

I have not had the opportunity to evaluate the scalability.

Customer support is full of great folks! We're beginning our Datadog journey, so I haven't had that much experience. The little I have had has been great.

Positive

This is all new. 

We used to work with New Relic. New Relic has an amazing APM solution. However, it also became cost-prohibitive

Since we are relatively greenfield, it was relatively painless to set up the product. 

Our in-house DevOps team did the implementation.

I don't know what the ROI is at this stage.

I'm not sure what the exact pricing is. 

So far, it's been great!

Our primary use case is log management and we also use the solution for monitoring the application and underlying infrastructure. I'm an IT test manager. 

I appreciate that they are constantly adding new features, some of which we haven't yet had a chance to implement. 

I'd like to see more flexibility in the customization and they have a few settings which need to be changed but we are unable to make those changes as users or as the administrator. The tagging to get the different parts of the monitoring interconnected is a bit tricky and takes time to work out. 

I've been using this solution for 18 months. 

The stability is good. 

I would say that the amount that we are monitoring is not that large and we've never had any scalability issues. We have around 50 users in our department. 

The availability or accessibility to customer service is not always good, although they generally provide solutions once you do manage to get hold of them. 

We have previously used different tools for different parts of the monitoring. We changed to AWS when we moved to the cloud. We also found that the effort in maintaining Grafana and Prometheus and keeping it up to date was taking too much time.

The initial setup was straightforward, we used a service provider and they also maintain our operation in general.

We have a four-year contract with Datadog, and the solution is pay-as-you-use. 

I would suggest using the documentation, which is quite good. It's best to start with existing integrations, and then do the customization step-by-step.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We are evaluating Datadog for observability and monitoring requirements that we have in our company. In our use case, our intention is to provide some kind of framework for multiple app teams to use the tool for our cyber ability and engineering practices.

They have a very good foundation in capturing metrics, logs, and traces. It's a very nice tool for that and it allows you to apply these monitoring tools in almost any technology.

Even if you have several layers, containers, EC2 instances, build machines or whatever you need in your infrastructure, Datadog can integrate with all of them across multiple cloud providers. It's a great product.

One of the improvement opportunities that we have identified in my project concerns how hard it is to manage an organizational structure when you have multiple things in one organization, and you want to provide some kind of isolation between them. At the same time, from the management perspective, you want to see an overall overview of what is happening in your business unit, or as a whole division. This is the kind of limitation we're facing.

I'm not sure what kind of features are in the roadmap right now, but I encourage the development of features for defining your organization, and allowing the visibility of what kind of metrics you can get. Those features would be really useful for us. 

I have been using Datadog for about six months.

It's a very scalable product. Right now we are using the SaaS version, so we don't need to worry about the infrastructure or whatever is needed for the platform it is running on. All the capturing of data is sent to the SaaS product and that can be as scaled as needed.

So far their support is pretty nice. They have established many meetings and training sessions, and they are supporting our requirements very well. I don't have any complaints with Datadog support.

While it is an expensive product, I would rate the pricing level at four out of five. 

Normally, the primary reason why people use these kind of tools is observability, but right from the beginning you have to understand what observability is, what it means for your company, and how the tool is going to help you to capture the proper metrics for making your applications observable.

We implement these solutions for our clients. We have implemented Datadog as an SIEM solution.

Because of our client focus, it is easy for us to sell. This is because it is easy to use and easy to set up.

While I like the ease of use, when compared with Tenable Nessus they could still improve their usability. They are okay, but there is room to be better.

They could have more integration.

They could be more intuitive as well. For example, the intuitivity of the user interfaces, and how long it takes for users to learn how to use Datadog.

It is not impossible to use, or impossible to do the administration with it but when you put these two next to each other, meaning Nessus and Datadog, Nessus comes out as the winner.

I have been using Datadog for two years.

We are not using the latest version, we have missed at least one update.

We have no issues with the stability of Datadog.

Datadog is a scalable product.

We have two customers who are using this solution.

Technical support runs 24/7. The technical support is absolutely fine.

We are also using Nessus. My experience using Tenable Nessus is better.

It is easier to install than to use it.

I was not the one doing the handling the installation. I'm a senior consultant, and I was coordinating, planning, and interacting with clients. But the actual installation, I was not involved with. 

The installation could be done in an hour or so.

It is not complex, two professionals are enough to complete the installation and maintenance of Datadog.

With Datadog, it's a monthly fee. They prefer monthly subscriptions.

I would recommend this solution for medium enterprises with 100 to 1,000 employees. 

Small business is too small for the way that Datadog operates. It is not the best for very large enterprises for a company with more than 1,000 employees.

I would rate DataDog an eight out of ten.

The main use cases are to provide visibility to costs for each product in the company as well as to consolidate all the observability in one tool. We are moving the team from being an operational team that needs to keep the tool up and running (applying patches and resolving problems) to a team that is focused on providing meaningful visibility of the systems, applications, and services of the company. We want to add value where the developers and the systems administrators are not able to focus.

The organization changed from having a team to operate different tools and providers to being a team worried about enabling and creating different dashboards, alerts, and automations in order to reduce downtime and increase the visibility of all the products, systems, and applications used. 

We moved from a full operation team to a team that adds value to IT, finance, product, back office, and any other team that requires correct information about the services provided while providing the possibility for them to create their own views and dashboards.

The tags are quite useful. They are providing the capability to give meaning to on-premises hardware (since it was not possible outside of cloud solutions and containers) as well to tag traces and logs. 

The full stack of integrations made it easier to monitor the different technologies and platform providers, including Software as a Service providers, that otherwise would need a lot of work and customization to be able to see what is happening. We'd also need to use several other separate tools that would require an increase in the required staff to operate them. Datadog gave us the opportunity to have a single platform for observability.

The product could be improved by providing remote control to agents, enabling them to execute automation and collections without requiring another automation tool or integration. 

Also, there is a lot of space for the FinOps discipline. For example, it could potentially provide better and richer information for the teams to check the costs and optimize the product.

I've used the solution for one year.

The stability is very good even though we have had some minor problems recently.

The scalability is very good. We've had no problems until now.

Technical support is good. That said, we had some cases that needed to be escalated to get to a faster resolution.

Positive

We previously used AppDynamics. The tool was not providing good system visibility as it was limited and had a very high cost.

The initial setup is somewhat complex. There is a need to create a new automation to install and deploy agents that needs to consider the required security for a financial company.

We handled the implementation in-house.

The ROI is still being calculated.

Users need to be aware of licensing control. With autodiscovery, the product can begin to come at a high cost.

We also looked into Splunk, ELK, and Dynatrace.

We use Datadog for general observability into our infrastructure, as well as running analytics queries for our SLI/SLO platform. This helps all of our teams be informed of how well their products are actually performing in production, and aim their efforts at the thing that will provide the highest ROI. 

We also use it for general monitoring and alerting during load tests and service releases to detect any issues related to the deployments. This helps us maintain our high contractual uptime promises to our clients.

It has drastically reduced the amount of time we spend on debugging issues and tracking down the root causes of incidents. What might have taken days or hours with separate vendors in the past (or even single vendors with terrible UI) is now quick and easy. 

We've often gone from detecting an incident to identifying the needed fix within ten minutes or less and covered multiple domains like APM, Logs, Database performance monitoring, etc., in just a few clicks. This is extremely powerful.

Distributed tracing is the most valuable feature. We have hundreds of microservices, and knowing how top-level requests weave throughout all of them is invaluable. 

At one glance, we can clearly see which service is slow and then switch over to the infrastructure view or container view to debug why the slowness is happening. This is true of all their other integrated products as well; the more you add, the more insights you get when looking at traces.

We also use RUM extensively. This helps us cover the last mile of application performance. Without it, we wouldn't know if our browser applications were functioning slowly for our users.

There is occasional UI slowness and bugs. While the Datadog UI is generally miles above its competitors, there are a few cases where it falls short or has started to slow down over time. They also occasionally make poor UI redesign choices. They should continue focusing on this area to maintain the high standard they started out with.

I've used the solution for five years.

We've never had major stability issues.

Scalability has never been an issue, although there is occasionally UI slowness.

Support via tickets is absolutely terrible. It's the one obvious bad spot for Datadog. If we didn't have direct relationships with many of their product managers, our experience would be much worse.

Negative

We previously used New Relic. It had a terrible UI and the integration between products was not great. Datadog is miles ahead of them and is continuing to increase that distance.

The initial setup is straightforward, and the docs are done well.

We managed the implementation in-house.

Our ROI is high.

I'd advise users to negotiate rates. Datadog's off-the-shelf rates are pretty high.

We have only used and looked into New Relic.

I use the solution to manage security-related logs and metrics, as well as create detection rules for security events. I am a security engineer, so one area of interest is the CSPM product, giving us the ability to look at findings across the cloud environment. 

The great part about the Datadog security products is that they incorporate the context of the resources/hosts where the security event is found. This allows us to see exactly what is running on a host that we see as a security alert.

The greatest impact it has had is on the ability to democratize observability and put monitoring into the hands of the people. Teams can quickly get the information they need, without needing a bunch of training, since the UI is super intuitive and easy for beginners. This helps reduce time to resolution during incidents and gives context to developers quickly and easily. Context is really important since seconds matter when the ship is down, and you don't know why.

I find the greatest feature is being able to search across logs from various microservices. As a member of the security team, I find that I often need visibility into other teams' services in order to get a good picture of our security posture.

I also am a fan of the ability to easily create monitors and get alerts into Slack quickly, without too much overhead. For example, I often need to create monitors where I am not too sure where the baseline lies. Having the ability to create anomaly monitors makes this process much more straightforward. Anomaly monitors are great for a security team.

One area where I was really looking for improvement was the CSPM product line. I had really wanted to have team-level visibility for findings, since the team managing the resources has much more context and ability to resolve the issue, as the service owner. However, this has been added to the announcement in a recent keynote. 

Personally, I've used it my entire time employed here, more than three years.