Why teams are evaluating FireHydrant alternatives
- Missing native monitoring
FireHydrant requires external monitoring tools and 350+ integrations for alert detection. Teams manage multiple subscriptions for monitoring, incident coordination, and alerting—adding cost and complexity compared to a unified platform.
- Alerting charged separately
FireHydrant Signals (alerting) is charged by volume on top of per-user pricing. As alert volume grows, costs become unpredictable. Teams need to budget for both user seats and alert volume, making TCO harder to forecast.
- Integration complexity
While FireHydrant offers 350+ integrations and extensive API endpoints, teams spend time maintaining connections between monitoring tools, alerting systems, and incident coordination. Upstat eliminates this overhead with native monitoring built in.
- AI features vs operational efficiency
FireHydrant emphasizes AI-enhanced retrospectives that auto-generate findings from incident data. Teams evaluate whether AI-assisted analysis justifies the cost and complexity of managing separate monitoring infrastructure.