Wakestack vs Datadog: Which Monitoring Tool Is Right for You?

Quick Comparison

What Each Tool Does Best

Wakestack Strengths

Combined monitoring in one place

Wakestack brings together:

• Server monitoring (CPU, memory, disk, network)
• Uptime monitoring (HTTP checks from multiple locations)
• Status pages (public/private incident communication)

One dashboard, one tool, one bill.

Simple setup

Install the agent, see your data. No configuration wizards or multi-step onboarding.

Predictable pricing

You know what you're paying. No surprise bills from custom metrics, log ingestion, or query volume.

Right-sized for smaller teams

Wakestack is built for teams that need reliable monitoring without enterprise overhead. If you have 5-50 servers, you get what you need without paying for what you don't.

Datadog Strengths

Complete observability platform

Datadog offers metrics, logs, traces, and more in a unified platform. If you need full observability, it's all there.

Advanced APM

Distributed tracing, code-level insights, performance profiling. If you're debugging microservices performance, Datadog's APM is excellent.

Extensive integrations

500+ integrations with virtually every technology. Whatever you're running, Datadog probably integrates with it.

ML-powered features

Anomaly detection, forecasting, and Watchdog (automated root cause analysis). Useful when you have too much data for humans to analyze.

Enterprise features

SSO, RBAC, audit logs, compliance certifications. Necessary for large organizations with strict requirements.

Pricing Comparison

Wakestack Pricing

Simple and predictable:

• Free tier for small setups
• Paid plans scale with number of hosts
• No per-metric or per-query charges
• Status pages included

Example: 20 servers with full monitoring + uptime + status pages: ~$100-200/month

Datadog Pricing

Feature-based with multiple components:

• Infrastructure: $15-34/host/month
• APM: $31/host/month
• Logs: Per GB ingested ($0.10/GB) + indexed ($1.70/million events)
• Synthetic: Per test run
• Custom metrics: $0.05/metric/month

Example: 20 servers with infrastructure + basic logs + APM: $800-1500+/month

The gap widens significantly at scale and with feature additions.

When to Choose Wakestack

You need server + uptime monitoring

If your primary needs are:

• Know when servers have resource issues
• Know when services are unreachable
• Communicate status to users

Wakestack covers these without excess.

You're cost-conscious

If monitoring budget matters:

• Startups watching burn rate
• Bootstrapped companies
• Projects where monitoring shouldn't be a major line item

Wakestack provides value without enterprise pricing.

You want simplicity

If you prefer:

• One tool instead of many
• Quick setup without complexity
• Sensible defaults that just work

Wakestack keeps things simple.

You have a small-to-medium infrastructure

If you're running:

• 5-100 servers
• A focused set of services
• Infrastructure that doesn't require distributed tracing

Wakestack is right-sized.

When to Choose Datadog

You need full APM

If you're:

• Debugging performance in microservices
• Tracing requests across many services
• Needing code-level performance insights

Datadog's APM is excellent and Wakestack doesn't offer this.

You need log aggregation at scale

If you're:

• Centralizing logs from many sources
• Correlating logs with metrics and traces
• Running complex log queries

Datadog Logs is comprehensive.

You have enterprise requirements

If you need:

• SOC2, HIPAA, PCI compliance features
• Advanced RBAC and audit logging
• SSO integration
• Contractual SLAs

Datadog has enterprise-grade features.

You're willing to pay for best-in-class

If monitoring budget is flexible and you want:

• The most features
• The deepest integrations
• The most advanced analytics

Datadog delivers, at a price.

You have 100+ servers or complex architecture

If you're operating at scale:

• Hundreds of hosts
• Microservices architecture
• Multi-cloud deployments

Datadog's feature set becomes more valuable.

Migration Considerations

Moving from Datadog to Wakestack

What you'll gain:

• Significant cost reduction
• Simplified operations
• Built-in status pages

What you might lose:

• APM and distributed tracing
• Log aggregation
• Some integrations
• ML-powered features

Migration path:

1. Audit what you actually use in Datadog
2. Identify features you can't live without
3. Trial Wakestack alongside Datadog
4. If core needs are met, transition gradually

Moving from Wakestack to Datadog

When to consider:

• You've outgrown basic monitoring
• You need APM for performance debugging
• Enterprise compliance requires Datadog's certifications

Migration path:

1. Keep Wakestack for uptime (if desired)
2. Add Datadog for APM/logs
3. Gradually expand Datadog usage

Honest Assessment

Where Wakestack Wins

• Price: Significantly cheaper for comparable server/uptime monitoring
• Simplicity: Less to configure, less to manage
• Status pages: Built-in, not a third-party add-on
• Focus: Does monitoring well without feature bloat

Where Datadog Wins

• Features: More capabilities across the board
• Scale: Better suited for very large deployments
• APM: Superior distributed tracing and profiling
• Ecosystem: More integrations with everything
• Enterprise: Better compliance and security features

The Honest Truth

If you're reading this comparison, you're probably:

• Evaluating whether Datadog is overkill for your needs
• Looking to reduce monitoring costs
• Wondering if a simpler tool would suffice

For many teams, Wakestack is enough. You don't need every feature Datadog offers. You need to know when things break and why.

But if you're running complex microservices, need distributed tracing, or have enterprise compliance requirements, Datadog earns its premium.

Summary

Choose Wakestack if:

• You need server + uptime + status pages
• Cost matters
• You want simplicity
• You have small-to-medium infrastructure

Choose Datadog if:

• You need full APM and tracing
• You need log aggregation
• You have enterprise requirements
• Budget is secondary to features

Both are good tools. The right choice depends on your needs, not on which has more features.

Most teams need less than they think. Choose accordingly.