We performed a comparison between IBM Application Performance Management and New Relic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup was straightforward and took minimal effort."
"The most valuable feature is the breakdown that it provides, such as a description of the fields for a particular transaction."
"It's easy to use."
"Because we have partnerships with other partners, I can share a bit about what I've noticed with IBM APM compared to other vendor solutions. Specifically, with IBM, the visibility into detailed process information is more tangible. On the OS level, APM displays all processes (or the top 10 processes) that are consuming CPU or resident memory. This is the most important thing that is not always available with other vendors."
"IBM Application Performance Management helped us increased our response time by 80% and cost 60% less."
"I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten."
"The transaction tracking feature from IBM is the most important feature for us. It is something that provides a terrific value for us and our clients. It has a lot of data sources and agents that are collectors. It is also stable."
"New Relic's dashboard is nice, and it's reliable. It's also compatible with many services, especially Java and the Python ecosystem."
"The most valuable feature of New Relic is its ease of use."
"The solution offers good documentation."
"As soon as it monitors all our systems and is integrated with PagerDuty, the operations team just needs to wait for alerts on their cellphones to fix things."
"We like the performance of the product."
"The most important thing is that it tells us where the latency in throughput and response time are."
"It is stable and scalable."
"There are many valuable features in New Relic APM. We developed some software applications and we are able to monitor the errors very easily. Their log security retention is very good."
"It's still missing some platforms. For example, if you look to applications itself, it is missing the interface."
"With APM, we noticed that the agent can cause a lot of issues for the application, making the agent very unreliable. Many issues are happening, and we've had to discuss it with support to try and get a fix. It affects application availability, and sometimes actions fail because of the agent, degrading the performance of the application."
"The demo that was provided to us is not working very well. At times, there are errors."
"They should focus on potentially enhancing the dashboard to make it more contemporary and adding some customization options. Furthermore, there might be room for improvement in the pricing policy."
"Its web user interface is a little bit old in comparison to other solutions, such as New Relic, and it should be improved. Its scalability and technical support should also be improved. Currently, it is scalable, but only in a vertical way. They provide good technical support, but the initial steps for a new case can be improved to fasten the resolution process."
"Technical support can be slow and needs improvement."
"The stability is not great and should be better."
"They could improve the education process and how people understand that these tools are very technical. Right now, if someone was to pick it up from day one, it is a very steep learning curve."
"I would like an infrastructure network that provides real-time views, showing the issues."
"The solution does not provide input on how the page performs in a big group. It just says that the page performance is bad, but it does not say what can be done to improve it. If they could provide some insight or guidance on how to make improvements, that would be a big help."
"There are times when you restart the engines and the servers have a unique ID for the host and you need to remove the server. It is difficult because some are on-premise and others are production hosts. Having downtime is not very good when updating. However, it is not a constant issue."
"There are certain features that are not supported in New Relic, such as CATSEARCH, which allows you to do a full-text search."
"In the next release, I'd like to see a better pricing structure."
"I think that there have been some questionable product enhancements. Over a year ago, New Relic rolled out a new navigation that really disrupted our workflow."
"Some of our customers see New Relic as a promising product to have, and we would like to deliver it to them. The only way we would be able to do that would be if we had server appliance for clients that we could install in their data centres."
More IBM Application Performance Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Application Performance Management is ranked 52nd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 7 reviews while New Relic is ranked 3rd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 151 reviews. IBM Application Performance Management is rated 6.4, while New Relic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM Application Performance Management writes "A multi-functional solution but has poor stability and performance-related issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of New Relic writes "Has a simple user interface and end-to-end monitoring and self-healing features". IBM Application Performance Management is most compared with Instana Dynamic APM, Dynatrace, BMC Compuware Strobe, IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager and AppDynamics, whereas New Relic is most compared with Dynatrace, Datadog, Elastic Observability, Grafana and Azure Monitor. See our IBM Application Performance Management vs. New Relic report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors.
We monitor all Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.