Datadog Reviews

We primarily use the solution for charting application metrics.

We use it for all our application metrics, host metrics, and monitors with a PagerDuty integration. 

We integrate our application logs. It is great to be able to tie our metrics and our traces together.

We use the APM module with traces. It is great to be able to link APM, logs, and metrics in one go, as it shortens our troubleshooting and RCA dramatically.

We are loving the tool; it is great to have all those insights in one place. 

We hope that they keep making my life and our engineers' life easier.

The solution improved our organization with:

• Data-driven decision making
• Dashboards we can share with our customer success team
• Dashboards we can share with our sales engineers
• Help during incidents
• Help with preventing incidents
• Integration with PagerDuty.

The most valuable aspects of the solution include:

• The charting application metrics
• help with the business, prioritization, software design, and infrastructure design.

The pricing model hurts and forces us to work around the tool sometimes.

On top of application performance metrics, it would be great to have host performance metrics, suggesting changes to better use a cluster like: "You are over-provisioning this host" or "based on historical data, you will need to scale up in X days."

Adding a module to extract data from Datadog so we can use the data in our own system would be helpful.

I've used the solution for six or more years.

We previously used New Relic, which was a great tool. That said, Datadog is a more complete solution.

The pricing should be less of a surprise. They should allow us to cap costs which would lead to less frustration.

We need better documentation on the pricing.

It might be helpful if they added a pricing simulator.

We primarily use the solution for monitoring and telemetry.

We use lots of log collections, log-based metrics, and dashboard visualization.  The logging, metrics, and APM are vital.  

My team focuses on the backend. Day-to-day monitoring includes observing metrics such as the CPU and memory until it gets too high. This solution provides an alert during the metric collection.  

APM and tracing are super useful. We use it for daily monitoring of CPU and memory. We can get alerts to tail to specific metrics.

We also find the tracing feature useful. We often run into bugs, and when a production issue happens, it is super useful to see the related services and sense where the problem is.

We would like to see smaller or shorter tutorials and video sessions. Also, the ability to provide a custom formula for monitoring is vital. Perhaps there can be more training materials on this. We often need to detect slow-running queries and slow network responses. We also focus a lot on the abuse of request limits. Having some form of rate limit features or metrics would be useful.  

Profiling could also be useful. Some services are CPU-intensive, and others are IO-intensive. Knowing where the bottleneck is, is crucial. 

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.

One of the things we use it for is the same thing that we use FullStory for, which is to replay customer interactions with our platform. However, it also does the monitoring. It's like monitoring cloud tools. We're really mostly monitoring our own software to make sure that everything is functioning properly. We can check a bunch of things, and we can even play back customer sessions. It’s basically monitoring our application.

It really provides a lot of visibility in terms of how our software is working. If there are any problems, it surfaces them right away. We get alerts in Slack. It's really an essential tool for a company that provides software as a service.

I really like the replay, the ability to replay sessions, as I'm in sales engineering, so I sometimes need to know what my prospects are doing during a proof of value. I can actually see all the mouse moving and clicking on buttons and stuff like that. I can actually tell what they've been doing. There’s a lot of the other monitoring stuff as well. The development team uses it for monitoring and finds it very helpful.

It’s been kind of in the middle of many different things. The dashboards and the performance of the software have been great.

I haven't really noticed anything that they could improve upon. Maybe they could add in some features to go both ways, to maybe make some configuration changes, etc. That's a little bit outside of what Datadog does, though. It's really very full-featured, so I don't really have any complaints.

I haven't really fully looked at the documentation as I know where I need to go and look at things. It could probably be a little bit of a better user experience. There are so many functions there that sometimes navigating your way around is a little bit hard. They have a really nice menu system. However, there's so much there. It's possible that I skipped a guided tour when I started.

It’s not intuitive to everyone. There are a lot of technical features.

I’ve been using the solution for the last five months. However, the company may have used it for a year and a half.

The solution has been stable and reliable.

We haven’t had a problem with scalability. It’s been good.

We have 25 to 30 users on it currently. Our entire organization is under 60 people. Although not everyone is on it, a lot of our staff are. The sales, engineering, and customer success teams are all on it.

We may increase usage. No doubt that will come naturally with time. We’re hiring more people, and likely new hires will use it.

I have not had occasion yet to reach out to support.

We’ve also been using FullStory.

I wasn’t part of the implementation. The one thing I will say is that when they added the functionality to review sessions, it made our use of another product, FullStory, almost obsolete. I'll have to see if we will continue using FullStory or if we can rely completely on Datadog.

I am a customer and end-user.

We’re on the most recent version and keep it updated.

I’d rate it nine out of ten. The user experience could be slightly better.

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.

We have used this solution primarily for application performance monitoring. To do this, we needed to make sure we had the right data in the system so that people could be able to monitor their applications end-to-end.

The infrastructure monitoring capabilities are really valuable. You can just log on and see everything that is happening within an IT environment.

Their security features could be improved. We looked at their Security Monitoring feature but it was early in its development. Datadog are just getting into the security space so I'm sure this will improve in the future.

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

To get started with this solution, I would recommend front-loading it with some sort of data or process and filter out to view only the information you need.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

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.

We deploy agents on-premise to collect data on on-premise VM instances. We don't use Datadog in our cloud network. We do have some Cloud apps that we have it on and we also have Containers. We have it on their headquarters, the main software for them is on their own Cloud.

Eventually, we're building out the process now and using it better. We plan to use Datadog for root cause analysis relating to any kinds of issues we have with software, with applications going down, latency issues, connection issues, etc. Eventually, we're going to use Datadog for application performance, monitoring, and management. To be proactive around thresholds, alerts, bottlenecks, etc. 

Our developers and QA teams use this solution. They use it to analyze network traffic, load, CPU load, CPU usage, and then Tracey NPM, API calls for their application. There are roughly 100 users right now. Maybe there's 200 total, but on a given day, maybe 13 people using this solution.

It hasn't improved the way our organization functions yet, because there's a lot of red tape to cut through with cultural challenges and changes. I don't think it's changed the way we do things yet, but I think it will — absolutely it will. It's just going to take some time.

I like that you can build out a dashboard pretty quickly. There are some things that come out of the box that you don't really need to do, which is great because they're default settings. Once you install the agent on the machine, they pick up a lot of metrics for you that are going to be 70 or more percent of what you need. Out of the box, it's pretty good.

I have been using Datadog every day since September 2020. I also used it at a previous company that I worked for.

Stability-wise, it's great.

It seems like it'll scale well. We're automating it with Ansible scripts and service now so that when we build a new virtual machine it will automatically install Datadog on that box.

The tool itself is pretty good and the customer service is good, but I think they're a growing company. I think better access to their engineers when we have a problem could be better. For example, if I asked the question, "Hey, how do I install it on this type of component?" We'll try to get an engineer on the phone with us to step us through everything, but that's a challenge because they're so busy.

Technically-wise, everything's fine. We don't need any support, everything that I need to do, I can do right out of the box. But as far as, in the knowledge of their engineers on how to configure it on given systems that we have, that's maybe at six because they're just not as available as I would've hoped.

We were using AppDynamics. Technically, we still have it in-house because it's tightly wound into certain systems, but we'll probably pull that off slowly over time. The reason we added Datadog and eventually we'll fully switch over is due to cost. It's more cost-friendly to do it with Datadog.

Yes, we looked at Dynatrace, AppDynamics, and New Relic. Personally, I wouldn't have chosen Datadog for the POC if it were up to me. Datadog was a leader, but New Relic was looking really good. In the end, the people above me decided to go with Datadog — it's a big company, so they wanted to move fast, which makes sense.

If you're interested in using Datadog, just do your homework, as we did. We're happy so far I think; time will tell as we are still rolling things out. It's a very good company. It's going to be a year before we really can tell anything. If you do your homework, you'll find that if you're really concerned with cost, it's good.

There are some strengths that AppDynamics and Dynatrace have that Datadog I don't think will have down the road, but they're not things we necessarily need — they're outliers. It would be nice to have them, but we can manage without them.

Know what you want. There is no need to pay for solutions like Dynatrace or AppDynamics that are more expensive or things that are just nice to have if you don't absolutely need to have them. That's something people need to understand. You just have to make sure you understand what it is that you need out of the tool — they are all a little different, those three. I would say to anybody that's going with Datadog: you just have to be patient at the beginning. It's a very busy company right now. They're very hot in the market.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Datadog a rating of eight. It does what we need it to do, and it seems to be pretty user-friendly in terms of setting things up.

Features-wise, I'd give them a rating of ten out of ten. The better access we get to assistance from the engineers on how to configure dashboards and pulling metrics that we need, that would bring it up a little bit. So overall it would be harder and it would have to be perfect for it. I would say maybe they could bring it to a nine.