Azure Monitor VS Checkmk
As of 30 October 2026, Checkmk is named by 106 companies and Azure Monitor by 741; Azure Monitor skews to companies under 200 people (28% vs 36%), Checkmk to companies over 1,000 (41% vs 45%).
As of 30 October 2026 · refreshed daily · counts move as websites, DNS and career sites are re-read.
The website-and-DNS footprint is not comparable between a marketing suite and a CRM: Azure Monitor's script and mail records show on hundreds of thousands of small sites, Checkmk rarely leaves a trace outside its own apps. Compare on the job-posting numbers; use the footprint for reach.
- Azure Monitor: 2–200 employees
- 28%
- Checkmk: 2–200 employees
- 36%
- Azure Monitor: 1,000+ employees
- 45%
- Checkmk: 1,000+ employees
- 41%
- Postings per company, 90 days
- 3.0 · 1.6
- Website or DNS footprint
- 0 · 0
Who chooses which
Share of each tool's companies in every segment. "Leans" marks a gap of more than two points.
| Segment | Azure Monitor | share | Checkmk | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-employed | 5 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| 2-10 employees | 30 | 4% | 7 | 7% | Checkmk |
| 11-50 employees | 62 | 8% | 11 | 10% | Checkmk |
| 51-200 employees | 118 | 16% | 20 | 19% | Checkmk |
| 201-500 employees | 110 | 15% | 19 | 18% | Checkmk |
| 501-1000 employees | 79 | 11% | 6 | 6% | Azure Monitor |
| 1001-5000 employees | 149 | 20% | 18 | 17% | Azure Monitor |
| 5001-10000 employees | 62 | 8% | 5 | 5% | Azure Monitor |
| 10,001+ employees | 126 | 17% | 20 | 19% | even |
| Segment | Azure Monitor | share | Checkmk | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technology & software | 316 | 43% | 37 | 35% | Azure Monitor |
| Business & finance services | 173 | 23% | 17 | 16% | Azure Monitor |
| Manufacturing & industry | 81 | 11% | 16 | 15% | Checkmk |
| Commerce & trade | 31 | 4% | 2 | 2% | Azure Monitor |
| Utilities & infrastructure | 23 | 3% | 2 | 2% | even |
| Consumer services & leisure | 22 | 3% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Health care | 21 | 3% | 3 | 3% | even |
| Public, community & associations | 17 | 2% | 9 | 8% | Checkmk |
| Property & construction | 16 | 2% | 5 | 5% | Checkmk |
| Transport, logistics & rental | 15 | 2% | 3 | 3% | even |
| Media & content | 12 | 2% | 6 | 6% | Checkmk |
| Hospitality & travel | 9 | 1% | 3 | 3% | even |
| Automotive | – | – | 2 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Segment | Azure Monitor | share | Checkmk | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 419 | 57% | 20 | 19% | Azure Monitor |
| United Kingdom | 79 | 11% | 5 | 5% | Azure Monitor |
| Germany | 37 | 5% | 44 | 42% | Checkmk |
| Canada | 36 | 5% | 2 | 2% | Azure Monitor |
| India | 25 | 3% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Netherlands | 17 | 2% | 5 | 5% | Checkmk |
| Australia | 12 | 2% | 1 | 1% | even |
| France | 12 | 2% | 6 | 6% | Checkmk |
| Switzerland | 9 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Poland | 8 | 1% | 3 | 3% | even |
| Singapore | 8 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Brazil | 7 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Austria | – | – | 5 | 5% | outside top 12 |
| Italy | – | – | 3 | 3% | outside top 12 |
| Portugal | – | – | 3 | 3% | outside top 12 |
| Denmark | – | – | 2 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Segment | Azure Monitor | share | Checkmk | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IT operations & business systems | 983 | 37% | 138 | 60% | Checkmk |
| Software engineering | 922 | 35% | 46 | 20% | Azure Monitor |
| Data & AI | 263 | 10% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Engineering (non-software) | 41 | 2% | 9 | 4% | Checkmk |
| Product, program & project management | 23 | 1% | 1 | 0% | even |
| Customer service & success | 19 | 1% | 1 | 0% | even |
| Sales | 13 | 0% | 2 | 1% | even |
| Quality, safety & environment | 7 | 0% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Administration & office | 5 | 0% | 2 | 1% | even |
| General management & consulting | 5 | 0% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Construction and civil | 3 | 0% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Marketing & communications | 2 | 0% | 1 | 0% | even |
| Unclassified | – | – | 1 | 0% | outside top 12 |
The companies behind each column
Companies using Azure Monitor →
Companies using Checkmk →
metrics monitoring ranked →
Quote the sentence with the date and the link. The numbers change daily; the link always shows the current ones.
Checkmk is named by 106 companies in job postings and Azure Monitor by 741; 0 name both. (Breaknorm, 30 October 2026, https://breaknorm.co/compare/azure-monitor-vs-checkmk)
Read from the source, not self-reported
Every number on this page can be traced to a page we crawled or a posting we read. Full methodology →
- Job postingsRead hourly from career sites. A tool counts when the employer's own text names it as the team's system; both tools can count for one company.
- Website and DNSScripts and embeds on the company's pages, plus SPF, DKIM, MX and CNAME records of its domain that point at the vendor.
- SegmentsCountry, size and industry from the company profile built from its website.
- Not a reviewNo ratings, prices or feature claims. For those, read the vendors.
Azure Monitor vs Checkmk: questions
Which is more used, Azure Monitor or Checkmk?
By companies naming it in their own job postings, Azure Monitor (741) over Checkmk (106). By website-and-DNS footprint, Checkmk (0 vs 0), because its scripts and mail records sit on many small company sites.
Who chooses Azure Monitor?
28% of Azure Monitor companies have 2 to 200 employees, against 36% for Checkmk. 45% of Azure Monitor companies have over 1,000 employees, against 41% for Checkmk.
Do companies run both?
0 companies name both in their postings, usually Azure Monitor in marketing and Checkmk in sales, or during a migration.
Where do these numbers come from?
From the employer's own text in job postings read hourly from career sites, and from scripts found on company websites in our crawl. No vendor data, no surveys.
Get either list your way
The same data as a search, over MCP and the API, as bulk files, or pushed to you as it changes.
Every company on either tool,
with the person who owns it
Filter on Azure Monitor or Checkmk. Start free, no card.