My main use case for Datadog involves working on projects related to our sales reps in terms of registering new clients, and I've been using Datadog to pull up instances of them while they're beta testing our product that we're rolling out just to see where their errors are occurring and what their behavior was leading up to that.

I can't think of all of the specific details, but there was a sales rep who was running into a particular error message through their sales registration process, and they weren't giving us a lot of specific screenshots or other error information to help us troubleshoot. I went into Datadog and looked at the timestamp and was able to look at the actual steps they took in our platform during their registration and was able to determine what the cause of that error was. I believe if I remember correctly, it was user error; they were clicking something incorrectly.

One thing I've seen in my main use case for Datadog is an option that our team can add on, and it's the ability to track behavior based on the user ID. I'm not sure at this time if our team has turned that on, but I do think that's a really valuable feature to have, especially with the real-time user management where you can watch the replay. Because we have so many users that are using our platform, the ability to filter those replay videos based on the user ID would be so much more helpful. Especially in terms where we're testing a specific product that we're rolling out, we start with smaller beta tests, so being able to filter those users by the user IDs of those using the beta test would be much more helpful than just looking at every interaction in Datadog as a whole.

The best features Datadog offers are the replay videos, which I really find super helpful as someone who works in QA. So much of testing is looking at the UI, and being able to look back at the actual visual steps that a user is taking is really valuable.

Datadog has impacted our organization positively in a major way because not even just as a QA engineer having access to the real-time replay, but just as a team, all of us being able to access this data and see what parts of our system are causing the most errors or resulting in the most frustration with users. I can't speak for everybody else because I don't know how each other segment of the business is using it, but I can imagine just in terms of how it's been beneficial to me; I can imagine that it's being beneficial to everybody else and they're able to see those areas of the system that are causing more frustration versus less.

I think Datadog can be improved, but it's a question that I'm not totally sure what the answer is. Being that my use case for it is pretty specific, I'm not sure that I have used or even really explored all of the different features that Datadog offers. So I'm not sure that I know where there are gaps in terms of features that should be there or aren't there.

I will go back to just the ability to filter based on user ID as an option that has to be set up by an organization, but I would maybe recommend that being something part of an organization's onboarding to present that as a first step. I think as an organization gets bigger or even if the organization starts using Datadog and is large, it's going to be potentially more difficult to troubleshoot specific scenarios if you're sorting through such a large amount of data.

I have been working in this role for a little over a year now.

As far as I can tell, Datadog has been stable.

I believe we have about 500 or so employees in our organization using our platform, and Datadog seems to be able to handle that load sufficiently, as far as I can tell. So I think scalability is good.

I haven't had an instance where I've reached out to customer support for Datadog, so I do not know.

I do not believe we used a different solution previously for this.

I cannot answer if I have seen a return on investment; I'm not part of the leadership in terms of making that decision. Regarding time saved, in my specific use case as a QA engineer, I would say that Datadog probably didn't save me a ton of time because there are so many replay videos that I had to sort through in order to find the particular sales reps that I'm looking for for our beta test group. That's why I think the ability to filter videos by the user ID would be so much more helpful. I believe features that would provide a lot of time savings, just enabling you to really narrow down and filter the type of frustration or user interaction that you're looking for. But in regards to your specific question, I don't think that's an answer that I'm totally qualified to answer.

I was not part of the decision-making process before choosing Datadog, so I cannot speak to whether we evaluated other options.

Right now our users are in the middle of the beta test. At the beginning of rolling the test out, I probably used the replay videos more just as the users were getting more familiar with the tool. They were probably running into more errors than they would be at this point now that they're more used to the tool. So it kind of ebbs and flows; at the beginning of a test, I'm probably using it pretty frequently and then as it goes on, probably less often.

It does help resolve issues faster, especially because our sales reps are used to working really quickly in terms of the sales registration, as they're racing through it. They're more likely to accidentally click something or click something incorrectly and not fully pay attention to what they're doing because they're just used to their flow. Being able to go back and watch the replay and see that a person clicked this button when they intended to click another button, or identifying the action that caused an error versus going off of their memory.

I have not noticed any measurable outcomes in terms of reduction in support tickets or faster resolution times since I started using Datadog. For myself, looking at the users in our beta test group, none of those came as a result of any sort of support ticket. It came from messages in Microsoft Teams with all the people in the beta group. We have resulted in fewer messages in relation to the beta test because they are more familiar with the tool. Now that they know there might be differences in terms of what their usual flow is versus how their flow is during the beta test group, they are resulting in fewer messages because they are probably being more careful or they've figured out those inflection points that would result in an error.

My biggest piece of advice for others looking into using Datadog would be to use the filters based on user ID; it will save so much time in terms of troubleshooting specific error interactions or occurrences. I would also suggest having a UI that's more simple for people that are less technical. For example, logging into Datadog, the dashboard is pretty overwhelming in terms of all of the bar charts and options; I think having a more simplified toggle for people that are not looking for all of the options in terms of data, and then having a more technical toggle for people that are looking for more granular data, would be helpful.

I rate Datadog 10 out of 10.

My team and I primarily rely on Datadog for logs to our application to identify issues in our cloud-based solution, so we can take the requests and information that's being presented as errors from our customers and use it to identify what the errors are within our back-end systems, allowing us to submit code fixes or configuration changes.

I had an error when I was trying to submit an API request this morning that just said unspecified error in the web interface. I took the request ID and filtered a facet of our logs to include that request ID, and it gave me the specific examples, allowing me to look at the code stack that we had logged to identify what specifically it was failing to convert in order to upload that data.

My team doesn't utilize Datadog logs very often, but we do have quite a few collections of dashboards and widgets that tell us the health of the various API requests that come through our application to identify any known issues with some of our product integrations. It's useful information, but it's not necessarily stuff that our team monitors directly as we're more of a reactionary team.

The best features Datadog offers, in my experience, are the ability to filter down by facets very quickly to identify the problems we're experiencing with our individual customers using our cloud application. I really enjoy the trace option so that I can see all of the various components and how they communicate with each other to see where the failures are occurring.

The trace option helps us spot issues by giving access to see if the problem is occurring within our Java components or if it's a result of the SQL queries, allowing us to look at the SQL queries themselves to identify what information it's trying to pull. We can also look at other integrations, whether that's serverless Lambda functions or different components from our outreach.

Datadog has impacted our organization positively because the general feeling is that it's superior to the ELK stack that we used to use, being significantly faster in searching and filtering the information down, as well as providing links to our search criteria that our development teams and cloud operations teams can use to look at the same problems without having to set up their own search and filter criteria.

For the most part, the issues that we come across with Datadog are related to training for our organization. Our development and operations teams have done a really good job of getting our software components into Datadog, allowing us to identify them. However, we do have reduced logging in our Datadog environment due to the amount of information that's going through.

The hardest thing we experience is just training people on what to search for when identifying a problem in Datadog, and having some additional training that might be easily accessible would probably be a benefit.

At this point, I do not know what I don't know, so while there may be options for improvements, Datadog works very well for the things that we currently use it for. Additionally, the extra training that would be more easily accessible would be extremely helpful, perhaps something within the user interface itself that could guide us on useful information or how to tie different components or build a good dashboard.

I have worked for Calabrio for 13 years.

Datadog is very stable.

Datadog's scalability is strong; we've continued to significantly grow our software, and there are processes in place to ensure that as new servers, realms, and environments are introduced, we're able to include them all in Datadog without noticing any performance issues. The reporting and search functionality remain just as good as when we had a much smaller implementation.

Previously, we used the ELK stack—Elasticsearch, Logstash, and Kibana—to capture data. Our cloud operations team set that up because they were familiar with it from previous experiences. We stopped using it because as our environment continued to grow, the response times and the amount of data being kept reached a point where we couldn't effectively utilize it, and it lacked the capability to help us proactively identify issues.

A general impression is that Datadog saves time because the ability to search, even over the vast amount of AWS realms and time spans that we have, is significantly faster compared to other solutions that I've used that have served similar purposes.

I would advise others looking into using Datadog to identify various components within their organization that could benefit from pulling that information in and how to effectively parse and process all of it before getting involved in a task, so they know what to look for. Specifically, when searching for data, if a metric can be pulled out into an individual facet and used, the amount of filtering that can be done is significantly improved compared to a general text search.

I would love to figure out how to use Datadog more effectively in the organization work that I do, but that is a discussion I need to have with our operations and research and development teams to determine if it can benefit the customer or the specific implementation software that I work with.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Datadog a ten out of ten.

My main use case for Datadog is to analyze data in regards to instant funding.

A specific example of how I use Datadog for instant funding data is understanding how long it takes for an application to be processed, approved, and then instantly funded, how many applications there are, and if there's any holdups on the applications as well.

We are identifying the reason behind a hold-up for instant funding and possibly why some applications do not get instantly funded. Datadog helps us identify those weak areas.

Datadog has significantly improved our organization’s visibility into system performance and application health. The real-time dashboards and alerting capabilities have helped our teams detect issues faster, reduce downtime, and improve response times. It’s also made collaboration between engineering and operations smoother by providing a shared view of metrics and logs in one place.

In my experience, the best features Datadog offers include the layout of the reporting, which is user-friendly, and for those who are not familiar with data, this helps the visual impact.

The layout and reporting are user-friendly because there is a dashboard that I use the most.

Datadog has positively impacted my organization by allowing cross-functional teams who do not necessarily work directly with data to understand, simplify, and take in the data points.

Those cross-functional teams are using the data now by reviewing these reports and they are able to identify weak spots as well to improve cross-functionally the application process.

Areas for improvement:
Datadog could improve in dashboard usability and data correlation across products. While it’s powerful, the interface can feel cluttered and overwhelming for new users. Streamlining navigation and offering simpler default dashboards would help teams ramp up faster.

Additional features for next release:
It would be great to see stronger AI-driven anomaly detection and predictive analytics to help identify potential issues before they impact performance. Improved cost management insights or forecasting tools would also help teams monitor usage and control expenses more effectively.

I have been using Datadog for roughly six months.

Datadog is stable.

Regarding Datadog's scalability, we have not scaled yet, but we are in the process of continuously scaling up, so we will find out in the near future.

The customer support of Datadog is amazing.

I would rate the customer support a definite 10, as friendliness is top tier.

Positive

I previously used a different solution, and we switched due to inconsistencies. The previous solution was also inaccurate and unreliable.

I have seen a return on investment in terms of time saved. I don't have metrics on hand for that answer, but there has been time saved due to the Datadog output.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been that all were fair.

Before choosing Datadog, I evaluated other options, but I don't want to identify other ones.

I don't have anything else to mention about the features, including integrations, alerts, or ease of setup.

I am unsure what advice I would give to others looking into using Datadog.

I found this interview impressive for AI, and I do not think there is anything I would change for the future.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Datadog a 10.

My main use case for Datadog is the security aspect of it, utilizing the SIEM and the cloud security features. I use it every day monitoring different types of logs and reports that come through, managing most of the alerts that populate from our different applications and software, and it's been a good ride.

Datadog has impacted my organization positively because it tracks all the logs and helps us utilize our features through security. We use Datadog in basically all of our other teams, including engineering, code, APIs, and many other features available, and my peers always say something good about it.

Datadog has helped my organization improve a lot of response time because we get alerts the minute it happens, which is our only means to reduce incident response time. I also appreciate how it provides remediation efforts, allowing us to implement different playbooks while constantly updating with new threats and vulnerabilities, keeping us safe.

One of the best features I appreciate is the Cloud SIEM, and I've used many SIEMs in my experience, but until I got to this company, I never had the chance to really see how Datadog works. With this organization, they were able to show me how easy it was, and Datadog has a really good UI that's easily navigable, helping us teach new team members quickly.

My experience with the Cloud SIEM specifically is that it works 24/7 and stands out due to the easy UI it provides, which helps onboard new members who enjoy it. They are able to pick it up quickly without any prior knowledge.

Datadog helped us out with cloud security features and alerts during situations where we get numerous account lockouts or accounts being jeopardized. Datadog was able to find the alerts and trigger to notify our team in a very prompt manner before it got worse, allowing us to promptly adjust and remediate the situation in time.

Something I would appreciate seeing from Datadog is more events focused on the networking aspect, which allows me to see what others are using. I enjoy showing up to those events and exploring new features they are releasing as well.

I think Datadog has been performing excellently with no areas that need improvement, as they've been doing great and I want them to keep striving to do better.

I'm fairly new with Datadog, having used it for the past year and a half, almost two years now, and it's been going really well.

Datadog is very stable, as there hasn't been any downtime or issues since I've been here, and it's always on time. I would appreciate seeing it as an app or mobile app for quicker issue tracking.

Datadog has definitely kept up with our growth.

I've had a couple instances where I reached out to Datadog's support team, and they have been really super helpful and very kind, even reaching back out after resolving my issues to check if everything's going well.

Positive

I was not here during the time they onboarded Datadog or looked for different solutions, so I'm not aware of which solution we used before.

I cannot share any metrics regarding return on investment.

Pricing is fairly affordable, and the setup cost has been good, while licensing has been well maintained, making it pretty great.

I'm certain they did their research and looked around at many different options, but I cannot speak on their behalf regarding which they chose or had competition with.

My advice for others looking into using Datadog is to honestly give yourself a week or two to explore all the features and software application, as there are quite a lot of amazing features to learn and utilize, making it not just a software to monitor threats but also a tool to enhance your knowledge in this industry. I rate Datadog 10 out of 10.

Our main use case for Datadog is collecting metrics, specifically things such as latency metrics and error metrics for our services at Procore.

To give a specific example of how I use Datadog for those metrics in my daily work, I had to create a new service to solve a particular problem, which was an API. I used Datadog to get metrics around successful requests, failure requests, and 400 requests. I then created dashboards that showed those metrics along with some latency metrics from the API, and I also built a monitor that triggers and sends an alert whenever we're over a certain number of the failure metrics.

The single biggest improvement has been breaking down the silos between our teams. Before we adopted it, our developers, operations, and SRE teams all lived in separate tools. Ops had their infrastructure graphs, Devs had their log files, and no one had a complete picture.

Here’s where we’ve seen the most significant impact:

1. We Find and Fix Problems Drastically Faster: The "single pane of glass" is a real thing for us. When an alert fires, our on-call engineer can see the infrastructure metric spike (like CPU), pivot directly to the application traces (APM) running on that host, and see the exact, correlated logs from the services causing the problem—all in one place. We've cut our Mean Time to Resolution (MTTR) significantly because we're no longer "swivel-chairing" between three different tools trying to manually line up timestamps.
2. We Are More Proactive and Less Reactive: Features like Watchdog (its anomaly detection) have been crucial. We've been alerted to a slow-building memory leak and an abnormal spike in error rates on a specific API endpoint before they breached our static thresholds and caused a user-facing outage. It's helped us move from a "firefighting" culture to one where we can catch problems before they escalate.

The best features of Datadog include a great dashboard, a super simple and easy to use Python library, and an easy monitor, which together provide a really great UI experience.

What makes the dashboard and Python library stand out for me is that they save a lot of time, getting right to the point and being super intuitive.

Datadog has positively impacted my organization by allowing us to have a link to a dashboard for most services.

We have dashboards across the company, which can easily be passed around, making it super easy for everyone to understand the metrics they are looking at.

Oh, that's a great question. We actually have a running list of things we'd love to see. Even though we get a ton of value from it, no tool is perfect. Our feedback generally falls into two categories: making the current experience less painful and adding new capabilities we think are the logical next step.

Honestly, our biggest frustrations aren't about a lack of features, but about the management of the platform itself.

1. Cost Predictability and Governance: This is, without a doubt, our number one issue. It's not just that Datadog is expensive—it's that the cost is incredibly complex and hard to predict. Our bill can fluctuate wildly based on custom metrics, log ingestion, and traces from a new service. We've had to dedicate engineering time just to managing our Datadog costs, creating exclusion filters, and sampling aggressively, which feels like we're being punished for using the product more.
   • How to improve it: We need a "cost calculator" inside the platform. Before I enable monitoring on a new cluster or turn on a new integration, I want Datadog to give me a concrete estimate of what it will cost. We also need better built-in tools for attributing costs back to specific teams or services before the bill arrives.
2. The Steep Learning Curve and UI Density: The UI is incredibly powerful, but it's dense. For a senior SRE who lives in the tool all day, it's fine. For a new engineer or a developer who only jumps in during an incident, it's overwhelming. We've seen people "click in circles" trying to find a simple stack trace that's buried three layers deep. Building a "perfect" dashboard is still too much of an art form.

I have been using Datadog for about five years.

Datadog is stable.

I did not previously use a different solution.

I did not deal with any of the pricing, setup cost, or licensing.

I do not know if we purchased Datadog through the AWS Marketplace.

My advice to others looking into using Datadog is to just try using it and see how easy it is to use. I found this interview great. On a scale of 1-10, I rate Datadog a 10.