We're definitely open to doing more consolidation in the future, especially if we can save money by doing that, but from a usability standpoint we've been pretty happy with Honeycomb for traces and Datadog for everything else so far. And, that seems to be aligned with what each vendor is best at at the moment.
https://www.honeycomb.io/pricing
https://www.datadoghq.com/pricing/
Am I wrong to say... having 2 is "expensive"? Maybe not if 50% of your stuff is going to Honeycomb and 50% going to DataDog. Could you save money/complexity (less places to look for things) having just DataDog or just Honeycomb?
Another potential benefit would definitely be reduced complexity and better integration for the engineering team. So, for instance, you could look at a log and then more easily navigate to the UI for the associated trace. Currently, we do this by putting Honeycomb URLs in our Datadog log events, which works but isn't quite as seamless. But, given that our team is pretty small at this point and that we're not spending a ton of our time on performance optimizations, we don't feel an urgent need to consolidate (yet).