Four monitoring tools, one question during an incident

No. This is about the synthetic layer specifically: the uptime pinger, the browser-check module bundled with your APM, the cron watcher, and often a separate status page vendor. Your metrics, logs, and tracing backend stay exactly where they are, and Checkly results flow into them through native integrations and webhooks.

Run both for a sprint. Adopt any existing Checkly checks with the import command, recreate the old tool’s checks against the same URLs and assertions, and let the two alert in parallel. When they agree on what a real failure looks like, turn the old alerts off. The overlap costs one billing cycle and removes essentially all of the risk.

Those get rewritten, and it is usually the most valuable part of the move. A check defined in code has an owner, a history, and a review trail, which is what stops the drift that made the old setup untrustworthy. Start with the checks that actually alert someone and leave the abandoned ones behind.

Historical results stay in the old tool for as long as you keep the account, and Checkly starts its own history from the day you deploy. This is the main argument for the parallel-run period: by the time you cut over you already have several weeks of your own data to reason about.

No. Point Checkly at the same escalation policies and channels. The practical difference is that alerts start arriving from one source with consistent context attached, rather than from four tools that each describe a failure differently.

For most teams, yes, and it is often the easiest part of the move. Status pages run on your own domain, public or private, and the services on them are wired to the checks you already have. An incident opens when a check fails, notifies subscribers, and resolves when it recovers, so the page stops being a thing someone has to remember to update. That removes both a vendor and the gap where your status page and your monitoring disagree.

The steps after detection stop being separate products. Checks emit OpenTelemetry traces, so a failure links to the backend span behind it and still exports to your existing tracing backend. Rocky AI reads the failed run alongside that trace and returns a plain-language root cause. Neither is an add-on: they come from having the check, the alert, the status page, and the evidence in one system rather than four that each hold a fragment.

It depends on your volumes and we would rather you check than take our word for it. The structural difference is that Checkly does not price per check in a way that pushes you to stretch intervals, which is the thing that quietly erodes coverage. See pricing for the numbers, and talk to sales if you want a comparison against a specific bill.