New Relic Reviews

Our use cases were varied. We had front-facing applications, message brokers, API gateways, legacy applications running on RPC, and platforms. We used New Relic for instrumentation, and we discovered different metrics using it.

New Relic is an APM tool, similar to Dynatrace or Datadog. It uses an agent to discover metrics based on browser, mobile, and custom matrices. We can also develop synthetic monitoring. It has helped us in exploring the metrics.

The best feature of New Relic is its simple look and feel, making it easier to use than other tools.

One thing New Relic needs to improve is the user data schema. It wanted us to move from version one to version two, but that was difficult because we wanted to do single sign-on, and it couldn't support our Ping Identity platform. That's something New Relic needs to work on.

Another issue I have with New Relic is its suite licenses. It has a two-tier system: the full-stack observability, which requires a suite license, and the free version, which doesn't offer any peer review capabilities. It needs to change because having a suite license for a user who can only view the post-stack, not even the curated view, is a big no-no. Dynatrace or SAP don't have this issue.

I should point out one more thing about New Relic. We use it with OpenShift, and one of the issues we faced was that New Relic required root access, which was a concern because no admin in the world would give any third-party vendor root access. However, they seem to have corrected this in the next version. 

I have been using New Relic for three years. We're using version 8.0.

It has its limitations, but it is a stable solution. 

It is a cloud-based solution, so the platforms automatically scale. 

We struggled with the support. 

We are currently using Dynatrace. We have moved away from New Relic because of its shortcomings – the user data schema. They had two versions, and we couldn't group different entities under version one. For example, our enterprise applications are numerous, including activation, OSS, BSS applications, and so forth.

It is an expensive solution. The licensing scheme is based on users having to have full stack observability, and there is no free version for non-seat license users to access what they want to see. I believe it's an expensive tool. They were not like that a couple of years back. Their new licensing scheme is based on full-stack capabilities; many clients would not like it. I would rate the licensing model a four out of ten. It is a very poor licensing scheme. 

It works well, and it has a very good look and feel to it. However, it also has its limitations. So some clients may like it. That's why they will be willing to pay more for New Relic compared to any other API. It's fine.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We are currently in the POC phase with New Relic APM and are looking at using it mainly for analytics.

We integrated the library within our backend service to see the throughput and to monitor latency. We also created a few dashboards in the New Relic dashboard section to observe the traffic and monitor how the system performs during the day.

It is easier to create new dashboards in the New Relic interface, and it is also easier to query if when I want to monitor a different parameter or time duration on my dashboard.

I like the overall monitoring and analytical features. It is a complete platform in that regard.

Some AIOps are missing in New Relic APS, and I would like to see more features in this area.

I've been using New Relic APM for approximately four months.

I would rate New Relic's stability at eight out of ten.

On a scale from one to ten, with one being low and ten being high, I would give scalability a rating of eight.

The initial setup is straightforward for this solution.

New Relic APM is a mature platform, and in terms of features and maturity, it is up there with other APMs like Datadog and a few others. Therefore, it is definitely worth considering.

Overall, I would rate New Relic at eight on a scale from one to ten.

The solution is an APM monitoring tool.

We will be monitoring all kinds of server details, including how the application is handling things and any threat count, as well as if there are any network utilization failures or problems with DNA instance ports.

The transaction summary is great. It's very helpful for reporting. 

The initial setup was not that difficult. 

It's stable.

The pricing is pretty good. 

The solution is scalable. 

There were some settings we had issues with. For example, a certain setting to change the time zone. If we change the time zone, it will take 24 hours to reflect the time zone and make the changes. It'll be great if the settings once we change them, reflect the change at least after one hour. That would be helpful so that we don't need to wait for one complete day to see the changes.

I've been using the solution for one and a half years. 

The stability is great. It's reliable. I'd rate the stability four out of five in terms of reliability. There are no bugs or glitches. 

The scalability is good. I'd rate it five out of five. It is easy to expand. 

I've never dealt with technical support. 

There were no other tools being used previously. This was the first we were recommended, and we deployed it.

It's a straightforward setup. It's not overly difficult or complex. 

I'd rate the solution four out of five in terms of ease of setup. 

Mainly the setup was done by the box team, so they were using it for their purposes and for the log activity. I'm just part of testing team, so I'm focusing more on the reporting side. The setup was not done from my end; the DevOps team managed the process.

We have mostly one person handling the setup and it took about two to three weeks.

We have a third party that manages the maintenance. There might be four to five people maintaining everything. 

Our own team handled the initial setup. 

I'm not sure if we've seen an ROI at this point. 

I'm not aware of the exact licensing costs. My understanding is that it is affordable. I'd rate it four out of five. 

We likely py a yearly licensing fee. It's all-inclusive, and there are no extra fees. 

I did not handle any evaluations on my end. I'm not sure if the company looked at other options. 

We are customers and end-users. 

Since we're working on a cloud-based deployment, the solution is always up to date. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. It's user-friendly and has many automated features. I'd recommend the solution to others. 

The primary use case of the solution is to monitor, log, and investigate incidents.

The most valuable features are the dashboards and tracing.

It is complex to use and it can be improved by simplifying it by making it more user-friendly. I would like to see the option to group alert conditions added.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The support team helped to resolve any issues I had.

The setup is moderate. 

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

I suggest anyone interested in using the solution should learn the query language first. It is a serious tool and requires a lot of time invested in order to understand how it works.

The service map feature is very useful.

The simplicity of the dashboard is very good. It shows the throughput latency and all of the transactions.

It offers transactions, but it does not offer an endpoint-level insight at the URL level. When we get a request, we want to know what the life cycle of that service is, and where the cycle is. This is what I am trying to locate with most of the solutions now.

I am trying to research how to find a cycle per endpoint and not at the service level.

It is very difficult to award the service level cycles at an endpoint level. It is important for us to get new insights to create better hygiene around the business use cases.

At the endpoint level, the visibility is not that great, and metrics are not available. It gives you a full view of the entire function's execution and not from the context of the URL altogether.

Also the response time, the latency contribution, and the throughput contribution are areas that need improvement. You can get the throughput contribution from New Relic, but not the latency contributions. You cannot get it at all.

These are the major limitations. When working with AppDynamics, I did not find any limitations, but the same can not be said with New Relic.

The way that it classifies the actual services is a bit ambiguous. It's not perfect. For example, I see there are certain solutions that are listed as extra services, as a dependency, and still I find that among load contribution, it tries to show that those services separately, which is confusing.

With the transactions, when it tries to show a type of "bufferHandler" from inside, it doesn't show what the nature of the request is. Especially with Microservices, it doesn't show what kind of method is present, which makes finding data very difficult. Instead, you need to go to the raw data. I think that defeats the purpose of using this tool.

The transactions do not show the time consumed by the request, from the metrics execution perspective. It was suggested that I did not know how to read it but I have done all that I could. It is very difficult to relate to and requires a lot of experience and time to read through, which it should not.

It should not be difficult to find the latency and throughput for the entire system when requested. It should not be difficult to develop the data that relates to the various types of execution.

It should have complete exposure around the endpoints.

The services-to-service dependency is fine but most of the startups have only one or two services that are all cycled. It does not provide you with a lot of help when you are showing that the two services are dependent.

What all of the dependent endpoints are and how are the cycles being formed is information that should be available in most tools, but not with New Relic and some other tools.

I have been using New Relic APM for one year, but in-depth in the last two months.

We are not using the latest version but within the year.

Almost all of the developers are using this solution in our organization. We have approximately 60 users.

It is used on a day-to-day basis.

I have not used technical support.

Previously, almost four years ago, I used AppDynamics. I think that it is a very good tool. I would rate AppDymanmics an eight out of ten.

We changed to another solution because of the cost. All of the developers loved the AppDynamics dashboard. It was very clear.

I was not a part of the team for the setup but my impression is that the documentation could have been better. It didn't make much sense. 

For beginners using New Relic, the setup can be difficult and should be simplified. 

We have a DevOps team to maintain this solution, but it doesn't require a lot of maintenance.

I think the pricing is reasonable.

There is a good bare minimum of required features for this tool, but if they are out to the in-depth analysis then finding a cross-dimensional relationship is not straightforward. It is difficult to implement.

If you are concerned about how your services behave, then New Relic shouldn't be your first choice. However, if you are considering New Relic APM, is a very affordable choice.

I would rate New Relic APM a seven out of ten.

Our company uses the solution for time series analysis. 

The solution is good for sending alerts, drawing graphs about system usage, and creating plug-ins. 

The solution should include more detailed reports for SQL database requests. 

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is very stable and working fine. 

The solution is scalable and has been used for both small and big projects that scaled over time with no issues. 

Technical support is knowledgeable, responds quickly, and provides good assistance.

I rate support a ten out of ten. 

Positive

We migrated from AppNeta because the solution is more stable and cost effective. 

The setup is easy and plug-ins can be written for any differences required. 

I rate setup a ten out of ten. 

We implement the solution in-house for customers and offer both on-premises and cloud options. 

I prefer the on-premises option because I like to configure and set things up rather than using ready-to-go options. 

The solution does not require ongoing maintenance because it works fine and runs with no troubles. 

The solution is less expensive than AppNeta. 

There were some benefits to using AppNeta. It provided more detailed stats and graphs for hosting products. If you need more specific digitalization based on system stats, you might want to go with AppNeta. For our use cases, it was less stable and more expensive than the solution. 

The solution is an excellent product for time series and operation analyses. It is a good and stable solution, has a good price, includes good usability features, and includes good support. 

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

The APM is great.

The solution can scale well. 

We've found support to be helpful.

It has a simple initial setup. 

The browser isn't exactly reliable. 

There are dashboard issues that need to be dealt with. 

There's no proper management of roles and divisions. For example, let's say if I create a dashboard and I want to give access only to a set of people and not to the other set of people, I can't do that, and that's where it has a lot of problems. If I develop a dashboard for myself, everyone else has an access to it. There's no proper access management. You just add someone to the platform, he gets access to all the dashboards. Yet there should be proper division of people who need to have access to a certain dashboard. 

I've been using the solution for three years.

While the APM is stable, the browser itself isn't too reliable. 

It's a scalable, reliable solution. 

We have 30 to 40 people working on the solution generally.

The technical support is quite good.

Positive

The solution is very simple to set up. I'd rate the entire implementation and deployment experience a five out of five. 

I've not witnessed any ROI. That's beyond my scope. 

I'm not aware of the exact licensing cost. The contracts are handled at an organizational level. 

We have a partnership with New Relic.

I'd advise potential new users to go through the docs first. They have very good documentation. Anybody who's going to start should first start with reading the documentation in order to get a good understanding of the product.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher if the browser rate was more reliable. 

We use this solution to provide insight into how the UI is performing.

We appreciate the way that this solution allows us to monitor the ongoing status of the UI at any given time.

We would like a dashboard feature to be created for this product.  This would allow us to monitor both the front and back-end of our UIs performance, and then report on it.

We would also like the solution to increase the details that are provided when there are system abnormalities.

We have been using this solution for three years.

We have found this to be an overall stable solution.

We have found the cloud-based version of this product to be scalable.

We use an in-house support team for this solution. They are our first-line contact point to resolve any issues that arise on a day-to-day basis.

Positive

We were previously using a different, comparable solution. However, we decided to switch to this product as it provided lower response times.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.