Keysight Oscilloscopes Reviews

I use Keysight products on and off depending on the customers that I work with. If they have Keysight equipment, then I will use it.

My primary use case is measurement equipment. I work on high-speed designs, With those, there is a whole array of Keysight equipment, but again, when we go as in-house consulting engineers, we work with the tools that the customers have.

They are one of the top name in the industry. When it comes to grabbing precise technical data, having an ecosystem of logging it correctly and working with the diagnostics, they are probably the industry leaders in the field.

Because they're such a big industry standard name, their products are standardized across many customers, which is why people own these products. 

The customer support is very good. If you need an application to do any measurement, you can easily get a hold of people to help you with it. This is a whole ecosystem.

The user interface is top-notch in the industry.

There is a learning curve, depends on the client equipment that I am working with. This is where application support teams are helpful.

The technical support is what really makes it good.

You are not just buying the equipment; you're buying the support structure around it. If you don't have the right engineers to answer your questions, then you're stuck.

I do consulting work. I don't own my own test and measurement equipment.

I don't make product buying decisions for these.

The clients may use different vendors.

We use it to debug our system designs and see the signals on the physical side, especially on Internet IPs.

We're using the 1 GHz oscilloscope.

It's a high-speed serial design. We are using it to debug the signals of the high speed serial. It is throwing it around 25 gigs. We also use it to measure all of our reference clock frequencies.

We are using all board differential and single-ended channels to send signals. The product is used in data center applications.

We measure the skewing of the design and system with a simple click of the button.

• Its ease of use.
• The user interface is simple and straightforward, so I can easily measure frequency, time, and other complex measurements. 
  
• It's pretty easy to go around the system.

The user interface has a load of features that come with it, which is why it is an eight out of ten.

We are not using the full bandwidth, as we are just using the basic features of the product. We hopefully will explore more of the product in the future.

The solution is field upgradeable. It has the software updates. Though, as of now, we have just started using the product.

We have not had a chance to use the tech support, as of now. They have a pretty good relationship with our team to help us out in case we have any problems though.

This is a very good product to do your basic signal integrity tests and check your signals in the systems. I would recommend using this product.

It took us 30 to 40 minutes to get acclimated to the solution.

The user interface is good and neat, with not much clutter. It's straightforward to use, so anybody can quickly understand the product and use it.

For what we need, we get that with the features on the current design.

We are not using it to support connect devices nor are we planning to going forward.

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 measuring eye diagrams of the eyes of high-speed PAM signaling. It's the primary reference for measuring the quality of our transmitted signal, so we're using it to validate that we made the correct chip and that our circuits are working as expected.

They're 100-gigabit per second PAM-4 signals and they're enabling the data center and high-speed wireless connectivity. We're utilizing the full bandwidth of the product.

For us, the solution is targeting 5G, high-speed serial, and embedded systems. For example, in 5G, we're using the optical, we're measuring T.Q, or some fancy optical output. And for the embedded system, we're measuring the electrical performance, usually over some sort of backplane. 

The user interface has never been better. They improved it a few years ago with a more modern oscilloscope interface and it's easier to use, even for more junior people in our lab.

I would like be able to measure multi-lane simultaneously. Right now, the high-performance jitter solution measures one signal. I would like to capture many at the same time.

The room for improvement is the cost. It's always too expensive. And it's an industry-wide problem to correlate the measurements with real system performance on an oscilloscope.

They have an 800 number you call and they answer it day or night. And then, many of the engineers are in my Rolodex so I'll just call them directly and say, "What's up?"

The cost is always a struggle. We always wish that we could do more for less.

At our particular company, there's a very decent volume agreement between Keysight and my corporation, so that influences a lot. But we also extensively use the Tektronix as well as the LeCroy.

We did do trials/demos of the products on our shortlist before purchasing and what we learned was that demos never go as expected.

My advice would be to get the demos because everyone's application tends to be different. Sometimes it's the fixturing, or sometimes you realize some things in particular that make a difference for your needs. It's hard, just in theory, to know.

There's very much a learning curve. It's hard for me to talk about it in detail because I have used the tool for over 20 years, so as it evolves, I evolve too. Since the very beginning of time I've used many different solutions for measuring, starting off with HP then finally going to Keysight. It's always been a reference measurement method.

The solution is not field upgradable, typically. You need to buy a new one to go faster.

This product is a ten out of ten. The DCA-X is the industry standard. It's hard to get better.

We use them for experimental measurements.

Since this equipment does a lot of different things, it's hard to say what is most valuable. It's a one-stop solution. It does everything we need. The combined functionality is the biggest benefit.

Regarding the user interface, since we are so familiar with it, it's easy to work with.

The biggest challenge for us is getting to higher frequencies, higher data rates. The higher-data product is always more expensive so if it could be cheaper for high-frequency measurement, that is what we would ideally want.

There is room for improvement in the upgradability of the products. When we buy a platform, we would like that platform to survive two or three generations, because it is very expensive. If they could provide a more modular type of design, so if we want to upgrade one functionality then we could upgrade that module, rather than all the equipment, that would be helpful. That modularity is something we would like to see.

Keysight has been very helpful, their technical support is great.

We did not switch to this product from something else. Some equipment works up to 30 gigahertz. When we started developing the newer product, which has higher frequencies, obviously we needed to buy the newer generation. When we made those changes we evaluated different vendors.

We are looking at $600,000 and it's obviously expensive, but compared to others, everybody is in the same ballpark.

It is between Tektronix, Keysight, and LeCroy. Those are the three we look at.

We did trials and learned about the features, how easy to use the products are, how consistent the data measurements are, and things like that.

My advice would be to evaluate the Keysight product.

In our company we have been using the Keysight equipment for at least 15 years. We use many different versions so I do not remember specific model numbers but we use a lot of the scopes, as well as PPD.

Technology advances in this field so we are always in a learning curve because there is always new technology, new products, new features come out.

I would rate this product at eight out of ten because of the features, ease of use, and the support.

Our primary use case is the IBIS-AMI Model.

We are using the Advanced Design System (ADS). We are doing the IBIS model for our customers. We develop our service, then our customer will evaluate it and comeback after checking whether our service has good correlation.

The application space that we target is high-speed serial, like PCIe, SAS, or SATA, which are all the industry standard. We develop it and deliver it to our customer.

Before silicon came back, our customers' performance was affected. Using these tools, we are able to deliver performance to our customers. 

The user interface is pretty good.

There is definitely a learning curve. It is a more advance software, which not everyone can use just by looking at it.

It should be easier to debug.

If the simulation runs for a long time, it will suddenly crash. If they can debug that, the product would be better.

The solution feels does feel upgradable, but we have any plans to take advantage of this yet.

We are using the full bandwidth of the product.

I would normally call technical support, if needed. They would respond with an email or come to our site.

Keysight is more advanced as a solution. That's why we switched.

We got a demo before purchasing it. We learned what type of interface it had and how easy it is to use it.

The pricing is always high.

It is a good tool to use. If they had a debug feature, it would be helpful.

We use the tool to measure some waveforms, which we normally give to our customers for use in data center applications.

We are not using this product to support connected devices, like IoT development, nor do we have plans to do so going forward.

We are using Keysight for characterization.

The signals that I'm evaluating are basic analog signals for hard disk drives.

It improves the functionality of our products and the products that I design. It does this every day. I use it for characterization every day, and it directly helps.

Its 4 port has true differential with quite a few de-embedding features. It goes up to 40 GHz with high performance.

There was a long learning curve. It's a bit difficult to get used to, so it took about six months to really fully get up to speed with it.

The user interface is not that good. It's not very intuitive. It's functional, but it's not designed for ease of operation. It's designed for functionality. Interface could be improved a bit. It could be a bit easier to use. 

One thing that should be improved is how reliable the product is. I have found it to be very unreliable. It breaks down a lot. That is one feature I'm definitely not happy about.

I am utilizing the full bandwidth of the product.

It will become upgradable if the hardware becomes more reliable, then I would take advantage of it. While I can't think of any other functionality that they can add, as it's pretty good as is, the reliability is the main thing for me.

I have contacts within Keysight. They usually give us evaluation hardware. They're pretty good about it.

We were using a previous solution. It was bulky. It did not have good de-embedding features, so we found out about a newer solution, and there was enough value to switch.

The pricing is on the high side.

We also looked at LeCroy and Anritsu. However, Keysight was overall an excellent package.

We did demo Keysight before choosing it and learned it was functional.

The functionality is excellent, but the reliability is poor.

The application space that the solution is targeting is PC components: hard disk drives.

We are not using this product to support connected devices.