Datadog Reviews

We primarily use the solution for observability.

The solution has helped with our POV phase.

The observability on offer is the most useful aspect of the product.

The FinOps needs improvement. 

The stability is good.

The scalability is good.

We previously used AppDynamics and Dynatrace.

We also evaluated AppDynamics and Dynatrace.

We share dashboards, set up alerts, and monitor everything that happens in our system. We use it in staging, features, production, and our load test environment. It is exceptionally helpful for making our engineering more data-driven. 

I came from a company that believes we should focus on being telemetry driven. Instilling this in a smaller, less mature engineering organization has been challenging. However, it is much easier while using Datadog.

The dashboards are great. They are an easy way to give visibility into what we need to watch with others who are not SMEs.

I enjoy the custom metrics. With this, we can take things that were once logs and then retain them longer.

We are able to parse logs. To be honest, this was only useful due to the fact that we had not yet set up the Datadog agent properly in PHP. Once we did this, the Datadog log parsing was no longer needed.

The ability to pin to a date and time is very helpful. This allows us to pinpoint exactly what was happening.

We need more advanced querying against logs. While most issues I have had here can be alleviated by way of sending better-formatted logs, it would be cool to do SQL-type queries against our data.

We need a way to see dashboard metadata. We launched a huge customer, and we saw more people using Datadog than ever across the entire organization, yet had no way to tell.

It would be ideal if we had some way to compare arbitrary date times more easily. We would love to use the Diff Graph command against some hard-coded value, for instance, against some known event.

I've used the solution for eight months.

The scalability is great!

We previously used New Relic. I was not part of the decision-making team that made the switch.

The ROI is the speed at which we can debug live sites. It has been excellent. It's amazing how many incidents we can capture before customers notice.

We looked into New Relic and a home-brewed solution as potential other options.

We primarily use the solution for log monitoring across our entire cloud infra (EB, EC2, Batch, and Lambda).

This is in addition to Rstudio Workbench, which has its own logs that would not be picked up via Cloudwatch(https://docs.rstudio.com/ide/server-pro/server_management/logging.html#default-log-file-locations). 

We own several dozen of these servers, and we used to manage instance logs by tailing logs when incidents occurred. Datadog allows for much better visibility across our entire fleet and has saved us countless hours.

It is now way easier to search in one place rather than across all of Cloudwatch (and needing to know log groups, etc.). 

Primarily, we run several separate deployments of Rstudio Workbench, which has its own logs that would not be picked up via Cloudwatch. 

We own several dozen of these servers. We used to manage instance logs manually. 

Datadog allows for much better visibility.

We've found it most useful for managing Rstudio Workbench, which has its own logs that would not be picked up via Cloudwatch. 

Datadog allows for much better visibility across our entire fleet and has saved us countless eng hours as a result. 

We plan on trying out offerings such as APM moving forward too.

Some things that Datadog does very well:

• Technical documentation (the docs are clear, concise, and include realistic code samples)
• Overall education efforts (e.g. the codelabs/workshops)

We primarily use the log management functionality, and the only feedback I have there is better fuzzy text searching in logs (the kind that Kibana has). 

I've learned about a ton of other offerings, like APM, NPM, etc., over the course of workshops. Once I try those out, I'm sure I will have additional feedback.

I've used the solution for one year. 

We mostly use it to handle log aggregation, monitor our web application, and alert us on data pipeline failures. 

Our system is fully on AWS, and so we pipe in all of our Cloudwatch logs into Datadog to have a central place to index and search logs. 

Our web app is built on an Elastic Beanstalk backend, and we use the Datadog agent to keep track of all of the requests that hit our backend and all of their components. 

We also use the prebuilt AWS pipeline dashboards to monitor our batch jobs and lambdas.

Datadog has made it much easier to have a central place for people to look for logs and made it much easier to notify them of any elevated error rates or failures. 

It is also easier to get high-level views of platform health, whereas looking directly at AWS tends to provide very specific insight into particular surface areas or products. 

By having the whole team onboard onto Datadog, we also have a single source of truth that everyone can use when triaging and resolving incidents that occur across any surface area.

The ease of setting up metrics and alerting and integrating with Slack has significantly reduced the friction of keeping the team up to date on the platform's health. Before creating custom Cloudwatch metrics was never very intuitive, and also it was non-trivial to set up integrations with other services we use, especially Slack. 

It also provides a good way to gain the context needed when trying to fix issues, as it's a central place to look through logs, requests, AWS metrics, and more - overall contributing to the health of our platform.

The product is quite complex, and there are so many features that I either didn't know about or wasn't sure how to use.

One thing that could be improved is somehow surfacing interesting or relevant products that might be applicable given our infrastructure. 

Additionally, the billing can sometimes be confusing and opaque, especially around not making it obvious what the implications can be if you add different AWS integrations. This has caused some unexpected costs in the past due to engineers not understanding how Datadog pricing works.

We've used the solution for around two years.

This was the first solution we tried.

It is quite expensive, especially if you don't know how the pricing works.

We use this solution for our customer's IP and to support their cloud infrastructure.

Datadog is easy to use and easy to deploy. It's a better solution compared to others on the market in terms of being budget friendly for our customers.

Datadog could be improved if it could detect other software in a container or server. Datadog is better than other APM or observability tools, but it focuses mostly on telling the customer what they need to know about the software, database or applications that land on the server. We also need to know the version before setting up an agent with the APM modeling tool.

In some instances, the owner of a particular software changes to another person and this person did not originally transfer the knowledge or data to manage the server. The new person needs to monitor this server and they need to know what software or version of software was installed on this server before they used the APM agent for monitoring. If datadog could provide this insight, it would improve how we use the solution. 

In a future release, we would like to be able to complete a network traffic or network flow analysis to detect the errors or problems on the network.

I have been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward. We needed two engineers for the deployment.

This solution is budget friendly.

Overall, Datadog is a good product to use and is easy to deploy.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

The solution is basically used for servers and applications.

The UI, basically, is the most valuable aspect of the solution. I really like the look and feel of the solution. It's not very distinctive now since other players have caught up, however, they were the first in the market to present such an effective UI. 

The many dozens of integrations that the solution brings out of the box are excellent.

It's easy to set up.

Deploying the agents is still very manual. 

Network monitoring could be better or rolled into this solution so that you do not have to buy a different product.

Customization of the tool itself should be taken into account. At the moment, although what they provide out of the box is good, they don't offer many customization possibilities. I know it's difficult, however, it's something that they would need to look at. When the customer gets some customization, they want customized requirements. We cannot do it. 

I've been dealing with the solution for five years. 

It's quite stable. I have never had an issue in regard to reliability, so it's very stable.

It's very scalable. I have not reached the limits at any time, never in the solution. I've never seen any performance degradation in large environments. I would say it's very scalable.

Each client has its own instance. We do not share instances with multiple customers. There's usually between 20 and 30, depending on the customer.

I never use technical support, to be honest.

The initial setup for the solution itself is quite straightforward. You just set it up and that's it. However, when it comes to, for instance, deploying the agents to the servers, or at least the target machines, it's still a manual task. They still do not have centralized management of the FD agents, which basically delays the deployment of the solution. It's very manual still.

How long it takes to deploy is difficult to pin down. It will vary based on the environment size. Obviously, if it's ten servers, it will basically take half an hour or one hour. If it's 5,000, obviously, besides the number of notes, other considerations will need to be taken into account. If t's a large environment, it will take much longer. We would need to basically develop a solution, or an effective process to deploy the agent and configure them in a standardized manner. This is something that the tool itself or the tool provider does not offer out of the box. You need to build it. That's a drawback.

How many people you need for the deployment and maintenance processes depends on the environment's size and geographical area. On average,  I would usually require for every 500 notes, one resource for implementation. Then for overall support, I usually put one resource per 1500.

Before, the ROI was much higher as you would not have to compete with any kind of tool since they were very good in the space. However, with time, other companies have picked up the slack. Now, you have other tools which provide a higher ROI. I cannot give a specific ROI percentage since I don't use it for personal use with deployment. We deploy it on behalf of customers. Obviously, depending on the deal, depending on the size, and the ROI will vary. If people are looking for a global monitoring solution in the same tool as Datadog network monitoring, they are always hindered as Datadog does not provide an adequate solution for it. That kind of decreases the ROI since you still need to get another tool to do the network monitoring.

The licensing is a bit complicated. When you pay for it on a note basis, that's perfectly fine. However, when you put log analytics on top of it, it's based on traffic. This is actually an issue. It gets complicated.

I'm providing Datadog. I'm a retailer.

I would recommend the solution. 

I would suggest if their environment is in the cloud, companies have their environments in the public cloud, such as GCP, Azure, or AWS. Datadog is a very good candidate to provide an overview of the monitoring. If you want to consider a hybrid solution where systems and servers and applications also provide a good solution and have a lot of APM capabilities, the only drawback will be network monitoring. When you grab a tool that you want to basically monitor the entire environment at a single point of contact, with Datadog, it's possible, however, there's not an effective tool to do network monitoring.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use Datadog for application monitoring, to help identify errors. It is also used to monitor application performance.

It helps organizations to understand User Experience with user behaviour pattern

Helped to reduce production issues in a defined timeframe

Helped to refine UX

Datadog has a very good visualization for my complete infrastructure and network traffic, which enabled me to create a capacity plan.

This product is great because it shows you the SQL and your application request in a single view.

The error traceability is an area that can be improved. This is something that helps us to pinpoint the area where a problem is occurring. It is a function stack, and it should be showing us how each function is defined.

We have been using Datadog for the past couple of Years.

I have not worked on it long enough to properly comment on stability, yet, because it has to be tested across my other platforms.

We have not done a full evaluation yet, but given that it is cloud-based, DataDog has to be scalable.

I have not needed to contact technical support.

Positive

We were using New Relic prior to implementing Datadog. In terms of application monitoring, Datadog is not up to the level that New Relic is. It is a better product but the price is too high, which is why we switched.

Yes. It is not complex. It allows you to get a certification of DataDog prior deployment of associates to administration and configuration

Inhouse. We got our Admin team certified.

Time to resolution production issue

The price is better than some competing products.

NewRelic

This is a good product and I can recommend it to others, although New Relic is still my first choice. Datadog is my second choice.

Overall, it is a good product and my main complaint is that it needs better error traceability.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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. 

My customers were using Datadog for monitoring purposes. They were using it only because the solution is running on AWS and it's a microservices-based solution. They were using an application called Dynatrace for their log.

Most of the features in the way Datadog does monitoring are commendable and that is the reason we choose it. We did some comparisons before picking Datadog. Datadog was recommended based on the features provided.

Most of the monitoring tools nowadays are have or are going to have embedded artificial intelligence and machine learning to make monitoring and logging more proactive and intelligent. Datadog has incorporated some artificial intelligence.

The solution does not require a lot of maintenance.

The solution had all the features we were looking for and we were able to create a central dashboard as per our requirements.

All solutions have some area to improve, and in Datadog they can improve their overall technology moving forward.

I have been using Datadog for approximately four months.

Datadog is a stable solution.

Datadog is a highly scalable solution because it is a SaaS solution. Having this solution be a SaaS is one of its most appealing attributes. When the vendor is going to manage data scaling and everything for you, you are only going to use the solution as per your requirements. Autoscaling is a great feature that they have.

The support from Datadog is exellent. If you're stuck on something or you are facing any issue, support from the vendor itself is available. You will receive a response instantly from the vendor on anything related to the requirement,  issues, or feature you are looking for. The responses have always been in a timely manner.

I rate the technical support from Datadog a five out of five.

I have used other similar solutions to Datadog and when I do a comparison between the other tools Datadog is on top, it is great.

Since Datadog is a SaaS solution we had not deployed the Datadog on-premise or in any Cloud. We were using the SaaS solution from the vendor itself. From the provisioning perspective or from the monitoring and dashboard perspective, we were using Terraform to create the typical monitoring as code. Everything was basically automated, we were not doing anything manually.

If someone wants to set up Datadog on-premise or in any of the Cloud machines, they have to consider a lot of things from the auto-scaling perspective.

My recommendation is Datadog is very good. Your team can mainly focus on the development rather than the solution itself. The vendor is going to take care of auto-scaling and maintenance and everything for you.

I rate Datadog a nine out of ten.

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.