No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Anritsu Oscilloscopes vs ScopeMeter comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Anritsu Oscilloscopes
Ranking in Oscilloscopes
8th
Average Rating
7.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ScopeMeter
Ranking in Oscilloscopes
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Oscilloscopes category, the mindshare of Anritsu Oscilloscopes is 3.1%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ScopeMeter is 2.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Oscilloscopes Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Anritsu Oscilloscopes3.1%
ScopeMeter2.8%
Other94.1%
Oscilloscopes
 

Featured Reviews

IcValida9f6e - PeerSpot reviewer
IC Validation Engineer at a manufacturing company with 51-200 employees
The Pulse Pattern Generator and Error Detector are co-located, making it easier to use. However, I would like a better GUI.
Take a look and do some demos. It will help you decide whether to go with this equipment or not. It took us about a week to become acclimated to the solution. We are not using this product to support connected devices, e.g., IoT development, nor are we planning to going forward.
AK
Digital Design Engineer at a aerospace/defense firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Maintenance is important with this type of product, and this product's battery life is very good
Adapting to the new products is taking some time, but this is normal procedure. The scopes should be more powerful for our tests. This is extremely important for our products. We need to reach the probing point in our products, and this is extremely hard for us sometimes. The user interface of the scopes could be simpler. Windows-based scopes could also be smaller.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The user interface is easy, simple, and practical."
"If your intent is to experiment with your signal to see if some boosting helps or your silicon doesn't have a lot of Tap features, then this is a good product to start with."
"It supports the PAM-4 encoding scheme. We use that to do our PAM-4 receiver validation."
"The features are pretty much the same as an expensive competitor, but the price is better."
"It supports the PAM-4 encoding scheme, and we use that to do our PAM-4 receiver validation, and it's also quick and easy to use."
"The Pulse Pattern Generator (PPG) and Error Detector are co-located, which makes it easier to use because I can just probe it directly on the PCB."
"It gives you the capability to increase the Tap levels and voltage strength more than what you have in your signal."
"The most valuable feature is its frequency range."
"Using the user interface is pretty easy to use. Everybody can use it in engineering area."
"Using the user interface is pretty easy to use; everybody can use it in the engineering area."
"Maintenance is important with this type of product, and this product's battery life is very good."
 

Cons

"The product's antennas and radar applications need improvement."
"I would like a better GUI with navigation. This should make it easier to compare to competitors, like Textronix or Keysight."
"Pricing is always expensive. It would be better if they lowered the price."
"The user interface is a bit complicated because they have so many tabs. If they could simplify it, this would be helpful and appreciated."
"Right now, it's a minimal tool. They could make it more dynamic by adding dynamic features, which could help us with doing effective analysis."
"Sometimes, the forms keep changing because of new product technology. If they could reduce the amount of change in the form, this would be good."
"I would like to see them improve the software. The new version can be improved. It's not quite stable. It restarts a lot."
"I would like to see them improve the software. The new version can be improved; it's not quite stable and restarts a lot."
"The scopes should be more powerful for our tests. This is extremely important for our products."
"The customer relationship should be more advanced/developed. Documents on the website should be more accessible and easily understandable."
"The scopes should be more powerful for our tests. This is extremely important for our products. We need to reach the probing point in our products, and this is extremely hard for us sometimes."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's very expensive equipment and cannot be upgraded after five years. If you buy equipment today, in five years, it won't be upgradeable. You have to upgrade it within the first five years that you buy it."
"It is expensive, but I guess that is why it works."
"The first version of the product is always expensive, then once there is competition, it will be cheaper."
"Price-wise, it is much cheaper than its competitors."
"Pricing is always expensive. It would be better if they lowered the price."
"The pricing is costly."
"I think everyone gets a demo before purchasing."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Oscilloscopes solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
16%
Construction Company
12%
Legal Firm
12%
Educational Organization
9%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Also Known As

BERTWave Series
Fluke Oscilloscopes, ScopeMeter Portable Oscilloscopes, Fluke 190 Series II, Fluke 120B Series, Fluke MDA-500 Series
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Siglent, RIGOL Technologies, Tektronix and others in Oscilloscopes. Updated: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.