Keysight Oscilloscopes Reviews

Our primary use case is measuring PCIe and differential signals (CCIX).

We use a high-speed scope for measuring differential signal, which measures for electrical specifications. This is what our PCIe protocols are all about.

The product's functionality makes things easier for my partner, who is doing the PCIe design. He is able measure the product's usage and bit error rate.

It is able to support speed, and not a lot of product are able to do this.

The user interface is user friendly, as it pretty much continues along their product line. It is not my first time using it, and it's not difficult to figure out.

I would like them to build in more high-speed functions, such as FEC or PCIe Gen5, built into the array. BERT to be built-in for more specific product call. These would make our lives much easier. 

FEC (forward error correction) require Reed-Solomon (RS) encoder and decoder. If scope able to provide RS functions (i.e. let us to enter different n and k values (block length and message length) that will make tool more useful for us).

We are not yet using the full bandwidth.

We have a Field Application Engineer (FAE) in our office area. Every time that we call technical support, they show up.

We decided to switch mostly based on speed that they provide. Everyone knows right now that speed of cellphones is getting faster. Currently, that is not the case for a lot of scopes and portals for speed measurement.

The pricing is very expensive, but with leading technology, nothing is cheap.

Our solution is upgradable. However, upgrading depends on how much money the company is willing to spend, because each upgrade will take a million dollars.

Keysight was the first vendor to come out with a 112G measurement solution. That is why my partner chose them. My partner did a training and look at it before he purchased it.

Keysight is number one and top of the line.

While there is a learning curve, they do provide training. Keysight does a three-day training onsite.

We are not using this product to connect with support connected devices, like IoT development, and are not planning to going forward.

Our lab has a 16-gigahertz scope and the 64-gigahertz scope. We have some other test equipment in our labs. We have an area of equipment in the lab that we use for high-speed measurements.

We use them for high-speed compliance measurements: electrical measurements of all the external interfaces, such as USB, display port HDMI, etc., which enable you to use your pen drives or connect your display. 

I personally run less of the measurement side now, I do more simulations, but we always correlate simulations with measurements and we need to get an accurate measurement and an accurate simulation to verify if our design works. Otherwise, all of these devices we build won't actually work in the customer's hand. Keysight is the main test equipment vendor, in our lab. We do have some other vendors but we almost exclusively run on Keysight these days.

Regarding the bandwidth, some of the scopes, like the 64, have a higher bandwidth than what we need with our current data rates, but otherwise, we typically use most of the bandwidth.

Every product that we sell goes through a regular set of testing. Keysight is our main test vendor so we're using all of their equipment for all high-speed measurements. We rely on the data and we make our design calls, risk-assessment, all based on the measurements that we take with the Keysight equipment. Those need to be accurate, otherwise our design decisions would vary from what the end customer would see in reality.

Obviously, it needs to be able to handle accuracy of measurements.

Good customer support is very important, especially when there are new versions of the applications that run on these scopes and we have questions. The specifications of all these interfaces keep changing on a monthly or a yearly basis and we have to also keep up when we're designing our devices, so we'll have a lot of questions: Why is your scope testing it in a certain way? Why am I not seeing what I expect? Why is it looking the way it's looking? We need to be able to get an answer from Keysight: How did you design your application and how can we match with what I am simulating or what I am expecting, if there are any discrepancies. Customer support is very important. Otherwise, I believe all these scopes do standard measurements across the board pretty accurately.

They have some software applications but their GUI is not the best. They need to improve on that. I think their software team needs to put in a little bit more work on how they are presenting the application on the scope. They can do all the measurements but if it's cumbersome to navigate through the system, then it makes life a little bit harder. They have to keep fiddling around with their app to get it to meet some visual acuity. Otherwise, it's fine. Once you can work through the app, it actually tests properly. We're not seeing many issues.

The user interface is clunky at times. You might see the box move to one side and you can't minimize it, you can't move it out of screen, and you have to minimize the whole screen and open up the scope screen. It doesn't flow. We do work through that. They need to do a little bit better job in making the UI more user-friendly. They have the stuff built-in, it's just the way it pops up on the screen might not necessarily look nice or it might just move to one corner and you're not able to close it, which is a waste of time.

I would also like to see a more detailed change-notice from version to version, what changed. If they had a more detailed description of what is changing and the reason for it, rather than just releasing, that would be good for us so we know whether or not to upgrade. They release software and we find out something might not match what we were expecting, and then we have to go back to them and they say, "Okay, we'll fix this." If they make any design changes, especially in the app or the way it's tested, they need to inform us as customers of what's changing through some engineering change-notice.

I evaluate technical support on the promptness in which they reply back, the detail. I would expect the application engineer to know what he's talking about have a background on what he's trying to explain to us and also support that with actual facts or specifications. If he is making a claim or statement, I'd like that to be supported with the actual specification and for him to say, "Because it's written this way, this is what we have exactly implemented and this is why you are seeing xyz." 

The speed in which they respond back is very important, especially when all the projects are time critical and we need to have quick turnarounds. I judge them based on how fast and how correct they are and if they can answer all my questions. I like them to try to help me out, work through my problem to an end solution.

We typically get demos. Keysight personnel will come down and show us some new stuff they might be working on or what we might be interested in. They sometimes loan us some of the equipment so that we can try it out before we buy it.

I don't see the price lists, but our company does get some discounts. I don't think we buy it for the full price. Depending on your relationship with the company, I think Keysight does have different pricing models. I don't know how it is with respect to any other company or any other team, but they're not cheap. They need to be that effective for our use case.

Make sure you know what speeds you are trying to test. Ask them for a demo. Ask them for some correlation data, some other products that they have measured. Ask for good pricing. Don't go for the highest-bandwidth scope if you don't need it because it's going to cost you more and it really doesn't make any difference in your measurements. You need to see what you are trying to test and buy accordingly.

In terms of a learning curve, I've been using smaller scopes for ten to 15 years so it is not an issue for me. As long as you have a basic understanding of what you are trying to see, what you expect when you try to make measurements, then you can learn the knobs pretty fast. 

You can go really advanced, but you have to understand what you are trying to do, what changes you are trying to make on the scope. Otherwise, you'll get garbage; garbage in garbage out. If you don't have the right inputs you will see something and you will think it's wrong. It's equal parts them doing the right stuff, but also us trying to use the equipment correctly. 

If you know how to design, or what you expect to see on the scope, then mostly if your design works properly on your product, you should be seeing the right things. Then, the ramp-up time is not too long.

As for the solution being field-upgradable, there are some things that we can switch out.

I'd give the product a seven out of ten. They can make it a little bit more user-friendly through the GUI. Otherwise, it's fine.

I automate these devices for the other persons to use and take measurements. Our current model is a VNA machine.

It's easier to automate and connect with multiple devices, and at the same time with laptops.

The ACPA comments for automation testing.

While the user interface is good with respect to instrumentation, but with respect to documentation, I do not like it. Its documentation is slightly bad. It was not organized properly. The way it's organized is very difficult to understand, so it takes lot of time to search for one thing in particular.

We are utilizing the full bandwidth of the product.

I have not contacted technical support as of now.

If you want to use it manually and automate it, it's easy. However, for automation, if the documentation was better, it would decrease your time using it. At first, you need to read the documentation, or if you want to search for any particular thing, it takes lot of time. So, you need to invest a lot of money to start this. If someone has some experience with Keysight, then it would be easier.

We are measuring signals mostly related to switching, like networking. The type of signals that we are measuring are signalling integrity.

I don't think it's being used for connection devices. I have seen past developments, and it's mostly used for taking measurements on the board to check how it works.

I'm using Keysight VNA, Oscilloscopes, and Spectrum Analyzer. The oscilloscope is mostly used for Keysight because they have a very high resolution and very high memory digs. They also can capture the signal reading at a very high signal read. We regularly go to 100 gigabits so we can capture a lot of signal for Keysight.

They changed a lot of the workflows, especially for the statistical analysis. They provided simplicity in the design, and we can ask for we want in futures designs. The statistical analysis is very good in the Keysight software.

The user interface is very user-friendly. You can use a lot of functions in their scope and will provide them for you. You can update the scope's software by asking Keysight to update the software when you want. 

The jitter management from Keysight is very smart. It can capture the jitter very quickly and provide some statistical analysis, which is awesome.

Signalling integration has room for improvement.

I would like more customized functions, so we can do the programming and definitions ourselves. There is an automation flow to capture this signal, and we would like to do this ourselves. If we could get a lot of the data automatically, then maybe we could get some machine learning stuff.

We are measuring many signals in one system (approximately 100).

With some features, you cannot use them as you want because the product is very specialized.

We have upgraded the scope and Keysight has given us more solutions.

If I need technical support, I can contact the account manager or architectural engineer for information, and they will give me support very quickly.

I have always used Keysight. 

Most people use Keysight. but some people use Tektronix, Teledyne, or Rockworth, because they have other needs. For example, Teledyne provides more high resolution scope, and for Rockworth, their spectrum analysis is very easy to use. Tektronix is very good at end log power management. 

We did a trial of Keysight before purchasing it.

We always are sharing this solution with our peers and colleagues.

The solution is targeting high-speed serial applications. For high-speed signal designs, you need to get the eye diagram beautiful. 

The learning curve of the solution depends on the quality of the material. Some things take a day or two to get acclimated, and others take a year or two.

I am working on some larger devices, so I don't plan on using it for IoT. Though some of our department using it for IoT, I don't have any details.

I'm currently using the 86100D and I've used the 86100C as well. The "D" is the most recent one so I'm using that right now.

We use it for test and validation. We want to verify measurements in our lab to make sure for our current products that everything looks optimal, as per the specs. We make sure that whatever we're looking at, the scope can give us all the features to validate that product. We use it for Tx jitter measurements, compliance measurements for ten-gig SFP+, QSFP28, and QSFP+. That's where it really is helpful, to do compliance measurements that actually correlate with the spec.

We are utilizing the full bandwidth. We use it for all speeds greater than ten gig.

There was a case where I was running a simulation of a channel, the transmit channel from the switch to the connector. In simulation, my eye measurement looked great. I wanted to see what it looked like in measurement. That's when I used the Keysight tool and a host compliance board, where I plug it into the device, using cables that plug into the scope. I measured the eye diagram to see how it correlated with my simulation. That correlation was very close. That's where it helps me really understand, whatever I’m working on in design, I can manipulate that in testing as well. It's great, it correlates there.

What I do like is the customer service, and the ability for the product to give a very clear indication of what we're trying to look at it. It breaks down all the parameters that we need to look at.

The user interface is great right now. I think they could improve it slightly, make it a bit more user-friendly. Although it is user-friendly, a bit more would make it even better.

In terms of additional capabilities, I would like to see more touchscreen and a larger screen. That would help. The current scope has a decent screen size, but at times what happens is, when I'm looking at it I need to have an extra monitor. If they could somehow improve that design with a bigger screen but not make it too heavy, that would be ideal. Some products do have a bigger screen but they're heavier. Maybe they can balance that out: Make it less heavy and provide a better screen resolution, a bigger size. That would help a lot.

There is room for improvement with some of the features of the scope. I would like them to make it a bit more simplistic. It's a very good tool overall, but if they could improve those issues slightly, that would help a lot. For example, if I want to look at what the total jitter is, they should make it simpler to find that, with different tabs. 

Their de-embedding feature is a very good feature, I like what it does, I think it's better than their competitors'. If they could improve that slightly too that would be nice.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give technical support a nine-and-a-half. They have very good technical support. They've been very responsive. Every time there has been an issue they've been very quick, giving speedy feedback.

We talked with the vendor regarding PAN4 applications, regarding the new technologies that have been coming out. They suggested what we could do to improve and what we need. The good thing was, based on the support, we were able to get everything we needed and just go from there. The traction with the scope vendor and checking what the application needs in advance and doing our own research on it helped us and provided us with our needs.

Pricing can be improved a bit. They try to make the pricing competitive but I think there are times that the competitors have good pricing. If Keysight can work on the pricing a bit more, that would help us to consider them completely, rather than the other ones.

Tektronix and LeCroy were on our shortlist. The reason we chose Keysight is that they are the most widely-used tools out there and we've been using them for a long time. And their customer service is a bit more responsive than the other vendors.

We did trials before purchasing and what we learned is that they all have regular tools, but in looking at the overall customer experience and features, Keysight was better.

Study what you're looking at. Analyze. See if the tool is applicable to what you are trying to measure. You have to do your own research and see if the solution matches the application you're looking for and what the requirements are. Of course, there's always a price budget so that's something that you have to look at. But I would highly recommend this product. It's a good product performance-wise.

I've used the product for more than seven years. I've used it at different companies as well, not just my current company. We used sampling oscilloscopes and real-time scopes to make eye diagram measurements. You're taking signals from your device on the test and looking at what it looks like; how clean the signal generator is from the transmitter. In the past I've also used it to look at the receiver eye too where you can actually drive a signal or a backplane and then look at it on the receiver end, using the scopes.

In terms of a learning curve, when I started my career with this product it took about a year to get really familiar with the tools. After that, it was complete repetition that makes you an expert. You keep learning more things about it as time goes on with the same product and there are new features with different specs. It took at least a year to get familiar with the product but every time you learn new things, it's under six months or so.

We have no plans to use it to support IoT. It's more for networking switches.

The current solution we have in the lab is upgradable. Keysight has done a good job there where they have given us a solution where they can actually upgrade it. At the moment what we have is the latest upgrade. All it required was buying the license and upgrading the scope.

We're using the N5227A 67-gigahertz analyzer for signal integrity applications, the passive components.

The solution is targeting the high-speed application space for us. Since we design components, primarily connectors, it needs to be high-speed to meet all the demands a standard connector company would need to meet, like a Tyco or Amphenol.

We are measuring standard step signals, full signals. We are utilizing the full bandwidth of the product.

It does everything that's fundamental for SI design in general. I'm not really sure how to explain how it improved anything other than that it does exactly what I need it to do. I don't really need to add or subtract anything from what's already available.

It does everything: 

• frequency
• applications
• time domain
• transformation. 

It does everything that I need it to with the PLTS software and the network analyzer software.

The user interface can be buggy at times. But I'm an engineer, I figure out how to get around them pretty easily so that's not that much of a concern. It allows me to do everything I need to do.

I would like to see better post-processing data utility tools like a de-embedding.

Technical support is pretty responsive, pretty decent.

We didn't have a previous solution.

It's very expensive.

Be aware that there are other solutions out there that are cheaper. And if you're willing to put in the extra work to make up for the disparity between the products, I think it can be done.

There was a learning curve, but only in so far as I needed to be more familiar with signal integrity design in general. They do offer a lot of resources available to budding SI engineers. As soon as you get the basics down, you get the gist of how to use their equipment.

Our solution is field-upgradable. We plan on upgrading it, probably within the next five to ten years.

I would rank the product at seven out of ten. It does everything I need it to do, but it is really expensive and I think there are alternatives out there that I could choose that would be cheaper. But we already have the product.

We are using it for R&D and production testing. We currently have a few models. We have a 26 gig with 32 ports. We also have 40 gig and 67 gig models.

I'm an SI engineer. We use Keysight equipment almost six hours everyday, making a lot of measurements.

Their software and hardware are integrated, so we don't have to spend a lot of time processing the data.

I am not really impressed with the GUI since it has not changed in almost 20 years (since I first began using the product). While the GUI part is okay, I can live with it. I would like more accuracy, particularly for multiport measurements.

Sometimes, it's quite hard to get the technical support to come onsite. If we run into a hardware, measurement, or software issue, we may have to wait a long time for them to come.

We have been with Keysight for many years.

We just upgraded our system from 40 gigahertz to 67 gigahertz. We just recently bought one.

The major factor influencing the decision-makers is the price.

Keysight is one of the very original companies who developed measurement equipment, so we've been stuck with them for long time.

We are doing high-speed copper cable measurement at about 112 gigabit per second requiring bandwidth at about 40 to 50 gigahertz.

The majority of our products are connected devices.

We are currently using it for 56G ANSI, 56G PAM-4, and 112G PAM-4. These are our three main signals. We are utilizing the full bandwidth of the product.

Keysight equipment is very popular.

The Keysight Ecal feature has made it very easy for me to do calibrations.

While the user interface is pretty good, going forward, we would like to upgrade it. It needs better calibration features.

We are using this product to support connected devices for IoT development, but we need more automation.

We are utilizing the full bandwidth of this product.

The technical support is okay, but sometimes they are on a different page than us. If it is something wrong with the scope, they are okay. However, if something technical goes wrong, like the calibration, it is hard to get the information that we need because it is hard to share everything and explain all the measurements in real-time.

The price is affordable for us, but for smaller companies, probably not.

We have competing products in our lab.

The learning curve is not that steep. If you are used to some of the measurements beforehand, it is easy and straightforward.

The application space that we are using the solution to target is high-speed serial.