New Relic Reviews

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.

It has the ability to simulate real-world testing outside of the US, emulating conditions outside the US with remote-access. The rest of world doesn’t have internet the way we do. Because we’re a cloud-based solution, it doesn’t perform consistently the same because of internet issues in other countries.

When our app passes critical threshold, can quickly go to Transactions and/or Database views and immediately see the code areas causing the issue. Saves so much time in debugging our code and environments.

Allows us to test and monitor performance for our international deployments in Asia and Central America throughout the release cycle.

It replicates testing, and we have a much higher level of functional and scripted testing across our application. We can execute test cases as they’re meant to be.

I honestly can't think of any areas for improvement. It's a complete solution that gets a 10/10 in my book. I really can’t find anything that I don’t like about these apps.

No issues with deployment at all.

We've encountered no issue with stability.

There have been no issues with scalability.

Once I had to file a support ticket which was resolved on the same day. It may have been a setup ticket for the kind of test we wanted to run.

We had no problems setting it up as it was very straightforward.

We didn't consider any other solution.

The ability to do layered reporting quickly and in real-time on stats is the most valuable feature to us.

It makes my executives happy because it allows me to provide them with usage statistics. We have three types of users: customer, internal, and vendor. We can see who’s logged on, when, how long, what views they’re using, what data elements they’ve updated and how often, and which features of all reports that customers retrieve and use the most. And management knows who’s doing work and who’s not, and who's doing what they’re supposed to be doing.

I'd like to be able to do visual selection of fields, so that executives who don’t enter queries and select what they want, but they’ve already announced that -- all that's now available. The only limitation we experience is with Insights query limit of 1,000 transactions. If there was an ability to do a “true” 4 weeks of transactions either by running Asynchronously in the background and returning an excel dump or by paging/tabbing the 1,000 transactions per window view, it too, would be perfect.

It has a limit of only 1000 records. I can run a query, and it will only give me feedback on 1000 regardless of the filters I use. Some users are heavy users and have more transactions. I’d like the ability to do 10,000.

I would like more than 1000 views.

First time we tried to do dashboard with nested queries, we had trouble getting syntax correct with tags. Tech support was very supportive with three one-hour sessions with my developers. Since then, it’s never been an issue. They literally hand-held them to get them to put the tags within our code to get the right results.

There were no problems.

If you invest in it and take the time to set it up correctly within the application, the sales and marketing information of the product will pay for itself within the first day or two.

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.

We have both the mobile and web applications which use the APIs in the back end. The New Relic Browser also monitors all our review servers and has mobile and browser compatibility. Most of our stakeholders view the data on mobile and don't need to open their laptops.

Stakeholders can install New Relic on a mobile device, whether iOS or Android and monitor the enrolment. It is more compatible with the mobile device, but we can view it on the web browser, and the same features are supported for both. In addition, stakeholders can access the system 24-7 and can monitor it from anywhere, anytime.

We can view the system in one view, showing the utilization and server activity. It lets us tell if our server utilization is high, conduct a memories review, and view it in one dashboard.

The solution only supports the cloud platform and not on-premises. Therefore, they should assess supporting the licensing on-premises as well.

Stability is good, and we had no challenges while accessing the New Relic system from the browser.

Scalability is good, and there are no limitations. Once we add our users to our account, they can access it anywhere in the browser. We have never experienced any technical problems.

We have more than 30 users that are already configured in our system. The pricing depends on the number of users we have, and we currently have only about five or ten active users out of the 30. Only our operations team typically accesses the browser.

We have four to five people who maintain and manage the day-to-day operations. They have other tasks at the company and are not dedicated solely to the maintenance of this solution. They monitor how the servers are performing and get alerts to their emails.

New Relic technical support is good whenever we raise a ticket. They reply and provide knowledge sharing for new features. For example, before the COVID-19 pandemic, they would come into our office and share knowledge with all the operational and delivery teams and others using the New Relic system. Their support and contributions are good whenever we need them.

The initial setup was straightforward and didn't require much work on the browser configuration. The user administration is also good if there is an existing New Relic account. It allows the restriction of privileges and control of users accessing complete information. In addition, it provides for a bucket of developers, stakeholders and operations and restrictions of certain access to view dashboards or features.

Browser implementation is also simple when an account and servers are added to the New Relic system. Those servers are automatically reflected on the New Relic account, and we don't need to do much. It is straightforward, and once we configure the agent, all our servers are under our account.

The pricing is a bit high, but the features are very good. It costs about 1500 per month, but historical information was something we had to buy at an additional cost. Other than that, the rest of the capabilities and features are bundled in one package.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. We have never faced any issues with this solution, and we are not worried about the technical capability. If we have a team that understands the system and the new capabilities, it can be used effectively.

Basically, I'm helping a customer of mine to set up monitoring items. What I'm doing is comparing solutions in order to create a document that I can give them so that they can pick one final solution.

The client is looking for infrastructure and for an application. 

So far, we like the insights.

Working with the solution is very easy. It's user-friendly. 

Overall, it's a good product, from what we have evaluated.

Currently, we're more in the process of gathering materials. The solution is quite new for us.

I haven't yet had too much of a chance to read up on the product or to compare it to other solutions to see if there are items that are standard elsewhere but lacking in this product. I need more time with the solution to really talk about any shortcomings if they exist at all. 

It would be nice if there were pre-made dashboards. There should be out-of-the-box options that you can have. It would be nice to have something already done, so that you don't need to reinvent the wheel again, to create your own dashboard. 

The pricing might be high if you are a company that goes through a lot of data.

I've been using the solution for about two years or so.

We're working on figuring out the pricing.

It looks like it's a little bit about how much data you ingest. Therefore, if you have a big environment, then it might not be good to ingest that month, as that much data will cost you a lot. 

On the other hand, Dynatrace has a good set of features where you can trace down to the application. However, they are more expensive they don't have some dashboards and cost is an issue for the client.  

I'm also looking at Dynatrace and Datadog.

The thing is all of these three solutions are doing the same thing. It depends. What we're currently comparing is pricing and if they work for the company on a budget level. We want to see what offers the most for the best rate. We're still trying to figure that out.

I'm just a consultant. I'm not a partner or a user of the solution.

I'm not sure if I have any specific advice to a company considering this solution as we are still in the early days of considering of this solution is the right fit. However, it's important to go through the process and examine a solution according to your company's unique needs. What works for our client might not work for everyone and vice versa. There needs to be a bit of research.

In general, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's a good product. It just depends on what you need as a company.

We use the Synthetics component to evaluate load balancing and monitor the average throughput of data on the system.

The most valuable features are infrastructure monitoring and application performance monitoring (APM).

We are developing alerts and methods using the New Relic Query Language (NRQL).

The licensing cost is a little high and it should be brought down.

It would help customers if there were an on-premises version available.

I have been using the New Relic Browser for five or six months.

We have had no issues with respect to stability.

Scalability has not been a problem.

We have not needed to contact technical support.

I am using Dynatrace at the same time and I don't see much difference between the tools in terms of setup. In terms of usability, Dynatrace makes it easier to get the information that I want.

It is really easy to onboard a new application with New Relic. There are a couple of things to be installed and configured. Overall, it is simple and straightforward and I don't see much of a challenge.

We have an in-house technical team for implementation and deployment.

This is an expensive product.

This is a solution that I definitely recommend. If you want to keep monitoring your site and find the performance of it, this is a good option to do so. 

I would rate this solution and eight out of ten.

The most valuable features to us are--

• Measuring performance from the applications point view against the view of the customer's browser,
• Being able to troubleshoot issues due to an app or network issue, and
• The error rate is helpful in finding issues in the server pool.

It helps us troubleshoot issues quicker, and when we're using it for performance analysis, several items can boil to the top. We can look at what's going on and what's slow and causing problems, instead of looking in general at which queries or operations are causing slowness.

I can't think of much to improve. We're very used to the way it looks and the traces. It's much better than it used to be, but perhaps the retention on some of the old problem traces would be an improvement. I think they run out after a relatively short amount of time and being able to look back and spot check some of them. If we have a problem today, it would be nice to look at back at the traces by, say, a week or a month even if there wasn't a problem then, so we can compare whether it's relatively slow or it suddenly become slow.

But I think the data layout is great as everything you need is at the top and we can able to drill down further and further to individual server,s or into the error rate and individual transactions.

The code is great. We don't have any issues, and I think that's the majority of New Relic customers. You have issues with your first customers, fix the issues, and then leave it alone until the next issue comes along.

Our track record is the same, we used it, troubleshot it, and then the developers fixed it.

I think we're finding more and more ways to use it. Because of plug-ins, we are pushing as much information in front of the app to the developers. I think too many companies end up with too many tools, but with New Relic, we want to keep in front of our developers all the time.

We've had to contact tech support several times, and each time they've been great. Their one-time survey call is good.

We've been using AppDynamics alongside New Relic. We had issues finding some problems, so we brought in AppDynamics and were able to dive further in, but after about six months, New Relic traces we're exactly as in-depth and usable. We were pretty confident with New Relic, and brought AppDynamics in to dive deeper, but their interface was Flash, which was slow and not nice.

Everything else about New Relic was nice. We could put different pieces of data in front of the developers, which is nice. They don't have as much information as we do in Ops from our other tools, but they get just the right amount of information to see where the bottlenecks are.

It was quick and simple. Always, whenever we look at a product, including ours, we've got in the back of our heads, what's the mean time to pretty graph? How quick is it to get data in front of you and that's usable? Within minutes we were able to get the information, and the first hour was great with New Relic.

When we're looking at new products, we look at whether the product works, how it works. Doing tests that are long enough is hard as no one wants to spend the time doing it, so I try to make sure that it won't take more than 14 days to set up correctly. If it's important enough, then the trials will be done.

It is one of the things that helps DevOps work in our organization and has helped stop finger pointing. It gives both sides enough info to help point us in the right direction of finding where an issue is. It gives us the insight into production to developers that operations doesn't want developers to have, and it allows them to use it all the time.