New Relic Reviews

We use it to monitor servers. It's just a log in New Relic. I set the start and end times, and then I just pull down the server metrics.

It's not the New Relic APM, it's just the New Relic. There is the one that is New Relic, and then is New Relic APM. It's a bit confusing.

Normally when I use it, it takes me 20 minutes to pull all the data, and I use it maybe once or twice in a month.

We would run a low test, and then after the test, we would log into New Relic and then look at things, including: what are the top five slowest interactions on the servers? What are the slowest database calls? Then, we just pull the graphs from New Relic, and then we give it to the customer and show them here are the calls are being made the most, and that correlates to a slow response time. Then they'll be able to focus on it and try to maybe fix it.

There's another user on our team that sets up the list of servers that need to be monitored. You just click on those servers and then from there you can pull all the data, so that's really helpful. You don't have to go through a list of 500 servers. You click on one server, and it brings up ten servers that are in that environment. You don't have to choose those same ten every time. Instead, you just click on that one link. You just have to click on the name of the group you want to look at, and it'll pull metrics for those same ten or 15 servers each time. That's very helpful.

The customization of the start and end time is kind of cool.

It's stable. 

The solution can scale. 

One of the metrics is total time. I would like to see the true response time of a particular call. It might say top five slowest calls. However, I don't know how they're calculating it. Maybe if they could have documentation for how those things are calculated, that would be a lot easier. If they say the top five slowest methods and the slowest one is three seconds, yet we know that there's a process that's taking ten seconds, it can be kind of confusing. If they could add in their help files, how these columns are calculated, that would make it more transparent. They need to clarify: What does it mean, total time? And how do they calculate the total time? How do they calculate average time? How do they calculate the top five slowest? What is it actually pulling?

I would like to see them introduce integration with LoadRunner; that's a bit easier.

I've used the solution for six to eight months. 

It's a very stable product. Overall it's a good product.

We have eight or ten people using the solution at this time. It is used occasionally, once or twice a month, just to pull out the data for the server monitoring and for the reports.

The solution can scale well. 

I've never called New Relic support. I never really needed to.

I'm also aware of Dynatrace. In Dynatrace, they have an integration with LoadRunner. You just have to add one or two lines of code in LoadRunner, and it will integrate with that, which is really good. 

New Relic doesn't have the option of integration with LoadRunner.

I did not install New Relic. By the time I was put on the project, it had already been installed.

They just let me know the ID and password, and I just logged in, and that was it.

As far as pricing goes, I heard that they charge per user ID. If we have ten people with ten IDs right now, if we want to add another five more, they'll charge us for each ID, so that is something that is maybe a concern. I actually heard this from one of their competitors. I've heard Dynatrace say that New Relic's pricing model was very expensive, so that would be a concern.

I'm not sure of the exact price of each user ID.

My organization is a customer of New Relic. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If it had better, easier integrations, I'd rate it higher. 

We have our current parameters and our current dashboards. Our main purpose is to continue to migrate and get the same metrics in New Relic. We will prepare another secondary dashboard between the parameters. And we will do a lot of monitoring on it as it is mainly used for monitoring purposes.

The monitoring so far has been good and we are happy with it. 

I haven't come across any features that are lacking. 

I've only used the solution for two or three months. 

It's very stable. We have currently around 150 GB of data that we are going to analyze. Almost each and every day around 75 to 80 GB is analyzed. We haven't had issues with the volume or with bugs or glitches. 

The solution scales well. 

London mostly handles any troubleshooting. I don't have to worry about reaching out to technical support. we do have the documentation we can reference, however, if we do need assistance. 

I've used Stackdriver in the past. However, it doesn't work well, with, for example, virtual machines.

The initial setup was done by our London team. I wasn't involved in the process and don't have any real details about how it went. 

I'm not sure if any ongoing maintenance is needed.

While it's my understanding that our in-house London team handled the implementation, I can't say if they needed help or recruited consultants or integrators to assist in the process. 

While we do pay for the solution on a monthly basis, I can't speak to the exact cost of the product. There might also be some additional costs on top of the licensing, however, I can't say with certainty. 

I'd recommend companies try it out and see if they like it. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. We've been happy with it so far. 

We use New Relic as an infrastructure management tool. 

The tool's most valuable features were APM and core reliability. We get alerts whenever an anomaly is detected. The solution is very friendly. 

The solution needs to have staging. 

New Relic is stable. 

My company has around ten users for the product. 

The tool has good support. They have big communities and forums apart from the tech support. 

New Relic's deployment was easy. They had good documentation. 

The solution is cheap, but prices can go up when users grow. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

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.

We do have a couple of applications for one of our customers. We are involved in performance testing and engineering of those applications. We use New Relic in multiple areas. It's used to monitor infrastructure in this use case. We capture the metrics around the utilizations on the infrastructure. 

We do also identify bottlenecks of the services or the calls, which are causing high response times. 

Those are two key areas where we have been using New Relic. We have been able to identify calls that are causing a lot of performance issues in the overall application, and then that, in turn, helps us to see what can be tuned to bring the performance to a better state.

It's a build-down feature, so you have the option to drill down when a call is being received. It further drills down the method level and shows which particular method or hit is actually causing the performance issue.

It's a common feature for all APM tools. That is the key benefit of any APM tool - it helps you to understand and get to the bottom of the issue or the root cause at the earliest possible time.

The solution offers good documentation. 

It's pretty easy to set up.

Real-user monitoring would be helpful as it would help me to really understand the client-side performance of the application. Maybe for whatever reason, we have not got to explore a similar kind of feature in New Relic.

I've been working with the solution for a year.

The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable. The deployment is not done by us; however, when we have to add new services or new components, it is pretty easy. The turnaround is also pretty quick.

Our team just accesses the client's New Relic tool. It's typically just used by performance testers and engineers. It also sometimes gets used by architects as well the development team. From our side, we have three people working on the solution. 

While my understanding is they do provide technical support, I've never needed to reach out to them. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. 

I'm more familiar with the likes of Dynatrace, AppDynamics, and New Relic.

We are just getting into a scenario where we might end up using AppDynamics. Otherwise, I haven't used anything before New Relic in a similar way.

From a documentation standpoint, it is pretty straightforward to set up New Relic assets. The infrastructure isn't that complex. To be honest, we haven't been involved in setting it up from an infrastructure setup standpoint. We have more consumers from which we use a setup that has been done to identify bottlenecks.

There's no specific maintenance that's been required unless they've changed endpoints which would need to be configured. It is something that's natural. When we do changes to the application and change endpoints, we'll have to configure the right endpoint. Otherwise, from a maintenance standpoint, given it's cloud and it's a storage medium, it doesn't need any major maintenance activity.

The customer tends to handle the deployment process.

I've done some research, more towards trying to understand various features. The customer, however, decides what tool to use. I don't really have the authority to compare anything and make suggestions. 

That said, when it comes to New Relic against AppDynamics against Dynatrace, or for that matter, Datadog, there are a few which have a higher price and provide richer UI. We did not really end up seeing a very major difference except in terms of monitoring.

We are likely working with the latest version of the solution.

The product has been pretty easy, and it is quite user-friendly in terms of trying to understand it. New Relic looks more at observability as a key factor. With it, you have front-end observability and back-end observability. My suggestion to others would be to go over them and also see if they can look at getting the documentation that's available to explore New Relic and then start with it that way so that it's easier for them to get started.

The other part is once they are used to New Relic, they can also look into a bootcamp that's run by New Relic, or a workshop. If they could attend it and then go into New Relic, that would be easier. They do have certifications as well which would also validate the knowledge that they gain on New Relic. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

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.