groundcover

Pros: Groundcover is highly user-friendly, with an intuitive interface that makes setup and daily use easy, even for newcomers. Its eBPF-based approach delivers efficient, real-time insights without high resource costs. Integration is seamless, allowing it to fit smoothly into our existing stack, and we rely on it frequently due to reliable anomaly detection and proactive alerts. Customer support is also responsive and knowledgeable, making the experience even better.

Cons: While excellent for Kubernetes, Groundcover's limited support for traditional on-premise and hybrid environments makes it less suited for non-cloud-native or legacy systems.

Pros: One of the standout features of Groundcover is how straightforward it is to set up telemetry metrics for Playwright with Grafana integration. The platform makes it remarkably easy to configure and visualize performance metrics, allowing our team to monitor test environments and application behaviors in real time without hassle.

Cons: While generally effective, there are minor aspects that could use a bit of polishing for a more seamless experience. Sometimes some dashboards take some time to populate and page sometimes needs to be refreshed, which is just annoying but fine overall.

Pros: $8e

Cons: There are a couple of things that could use some work. Sometimes, the queries can be a bit slow to pull up data, and they’ll randomly get stuck. Also, the filter sections can feel a bit complicated, navigating them isn't always the easiest.

Pros: The pricing is a major advantage, offering good value for the features available. It's an efficient solution for those on a budget.

Cons: Compared to other full-fledged products, there are areas that could use improvement. Some functionalities feel limited.

Pros: What I liked the most about groundcover is how easily it integrates with Kubeflow for monitoring data pipelines. The real-time log tracking and observability features are a big plus, especially when dealing with complex workflows. It simplifies tracking down issues by giving clear insights into what’s happening at each stage of the pipeline. The interface is intuitive, which made it easier for me, even as an intern, to get the hang of it quickly.

Cons: One downside I noticed is that the tool can be a bit resource-intensive, especially when running multiple simultaneous jobs. It could slow things down if the infrastructure isn't strong enough, which is something to keep in mind. I personally haven't faced such an issue but have heard from my fellow-mates

Pros: Getting all in one place. UI is very good and easy to use. Most liked feature is where I get to select "ONLY" while filtering out. Another thing I get to monitor all resources and infrastructure at one place which helps in monitoring our services.

Cons: Screen resolution is the issue, sometimes I can not fully see the traces or logs page which come in right bottom. In monitor I am able to see them properly but when I open in laptop, I dont get to see them properly.

Pros: New features often, comparable to monitoring apps like datadog, simple to read charts, and intuitive UI

Cons: UI can be sluggish at times, occasional errors when trying to load pages

Pros: Facebook's Groundcover initiative stands out as a significant innovation in building scalable, efficient, and open-source cloud-native observability tools. What I appreciate most about it is how it seeks to empower developers with deep insights into their infrastructure and applications without compromising on performance or scalability. By focusing on providing real-time, granular visibility into cloud environments, Groundcover helps teams identify issues faster and optimize systems more effectively. Additionally, its commitment to open-source allows a broader community to contribute, learn, and benefit from cutting-edge observability practices. This fosters collaboration and accelerates innovation in cloud-native solutions.

Cons: What I like least about Facebook's Groundcover is the potential complexity that comes with implementing and managing it in large-scale environments. While it's designed to offer deep observability, the extensive amount of data it gathers can sometimes overwhelm teams if they don't have the proper strategies in place to handle and analyze that information efficiently. Additionally, for smaller teams or organizations without dedicated DevOps resources, the learning curve and maintenance efforts required to fully leverage Groundcover’s features could be daunting, making it harder for them to extract meaningful value quickly.

Pros: liked the traces functionality, helps me track all requests that are sampled, gives an overall idea of any new change going live to prod.

Cons: Data consistency is something that can be improved going forward. Makes it difficult to rely at times.

Pros: ease of use , support, pricing, wide coverage

Cons: no custom reports options , Grafana is not the easiest to manage

Pros: all I need in one place: metrics, logs, traces etc.

Cons: history limited to 2 days not many protocol supported

Pros: It's a very useful tool to help monitor, store logs and metrics. For sure i would like to mention their very helpful support that can help with anything groundcover related.

Cons: To be honest i would have to be very picky to state any true downsides of groundcover

Pros: Very easy to see complicated data. See log trace with great filter feature.

Cons: In first look it look cheap product, but after digging in it very compact and powerfull.

Pros: Makes work much easier. For example, finding logs.

Cons: Takes some time getting used to it but after a while its fine.

Pros: A lot of important data is exposed, this helps a lot to debug our production

Cons: As a new user i find it hard to get into all of the abilities i have in groundcover

Pros: It is pretty easy and fast to setuo, and the UI is simple and understandable, but feature-rich.

Cons: The default setup had some stability issues at first, but the groundcover team was very helpful to solve them.

Pros: Easy to navigate and search logs. Shows good metrics pods-wise

Cons: Hard to find the details of a specific log

Pros: It is super easy to install (installer is clever enough to ask about kubernetes node taints required to be able to provision all nodes), just few steps in small cli tool. All the data is aggregated and displayed in meaningful way right at the front page, no need to spend hours learning documentation on how setup and use the tool. Very intuitive tool, focused on providing insight into health / state of k8s cluster and services and it does it really well. Historical data (events, logs, traces, metrics) allows you to quickly figure out issues that happened last night leaving no room for guess-work.

Cons: At this point it is missing eBPF support for MSSQL, navigating through distributed traces could be improved (group them by transaction type and aggregate based on that).

Pros: Run fast in high scale . gives you a very good and deep insights for your apps and network / resources

Cons: don't have any yet I really like your product - I came from Nokia and we implement something similar but this is by far better

Pros: We liked the idea of hosting data in our cloud account and at the same time having the ability to use the service as SaaS. We also liked the ability to have fully managed observability service as such a low cost.

Cons: groundcover services are still maturing. We had to request couple of features that do not exist yet.

Pros: The most standout aspect of groundcover is its compatibility and native integration with EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Service), which enables rapid installation and provides a complete observability platform. It's particularly efficient in terms of resource usage, maintaining a minimal footprint on the infrastructure.

Cons: Groundcover thrives in Kubernetes (K8s) environments, delivering top-notch performance. While it may not be as immediate in non-EKS settings, it still supports various integrations.

Pros: Easy setup, simple pricing model no hidden fees. Full control over retention without affecting cost. Mostly used eBPF integrations out of the box. Simple UI that gets directly to the point.

Cons: Some eBPF integrations not yet available