New Relic Reviews

The primary use case of the solution is to monitor, log, and investigate incidents.

The most valuable features are the dashboards and tracing.

It is complex to use and it can be improved by simplifying it by making it more user-friendly. I would like to see the option to group alert conditions added.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The support team helped to resolve any issues I had.

The setup is moderate. 

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

I suggest anyone interested in using the solution should learn the query language first. It is a serious tool and requires a lot of time invested in order to understand how it works.

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. 

The APM is great.

The solution can scale well. 

We've found support to be helpful.

It has a simple initial setup. 

The browser isn't exactly reliable. 

There are dashboard issues that need to be dealt with. 

There's no proper management of roles and divisions. For example, let's say if I create a dashboard and I want to give access only to a set of people and not to the other set of people, I can't do that, and that's where it has a lot of problems. If I develop a dashboard for myself, everyone else has an access to it. There's no proper access management. You just add someone to the platform, he gets access to all the dashboards. Yet there should be proper division of people who need to have access to a certain dashboard. 

I've been using the solution for three years.

While the APM is stable, the browser itself isn't too reliable. 

It's a scalable, reliable solution. 

We have 30 to 40 people working on the solution generally.

The technical support is quite good.

Positive

The solution is very simple to set up. I'd rate the entire implementation and deployment experience a five out of five. 

I've not witnessed any ROI. That's beyond my scope. 

I'm not aware of the exact licensing cost. The contracts are handled at an organizational level. 

We have a partnership with New Relic.

I'd advise potential new users to go through the docs first. They have very good documentation. Anybody who's going to start should first start with reading the documentation in order to get a good understanding of the product.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher if the browser rate was more reliable. 

I used it in another organization. I had a project where we were using New Relic for monitoring APIs and utilization of nodes or hosts. It was a standard implementation that involved getting the statistics and configuring New Relic agents on the application servers. The data was sniffed from the network based on the configuration and then it was saved. We were using the out-of-the-box capability of New Relic. We didn't do any customization on New Relic.

It was a good solution. My boss, who was a VP, was very happy with the system, and he didn't want to change the system because it was working well. Whenever anything went wrong, we got clear information about that on the fly. This information helped the operations team in sorting things faster. It gave clear information and a complete picture of what was happening in our system, which helped the operations team in performing the required actions.

The alert mechanism is quite accurate when something goes wrong in your system. For example, if you have hundreds of APIs on your server, and any of the APIs is not performing well, you get an alert. When there is a drop or change in the threshold value, the beauty of New Relic is that within a fraction of seconds, all the stakeholders who are configured in the New Relic system will get an alert. That's one good thing.

There is a dashboard where you can view API-wise performance. When you click specific APIs, you can get detailed statistics for the same.

One thing that we noticed was that historical information was only for a limited period, which was not helpful in certain scenarios. For example, if I want to size my system for an event for New Year or Christmas season based on the historical data, I won't be able to find the historical data. Currently, the data is limited to three months. It would be helpful if they can provide historical data for a longer duration so that we can plan our system accordingly.

It was used for more than four years.

Its stability is quite good. We don't see any issues with the stability.

We never had any challenges because our servers were scaled based on the load. When our load increased, we used to keep adding our servers to New Relic. We didn't see any challenges. It just required the agent configuration on the server. The only thing is that you have to put in more money when you are adding servers.

It was straightforward. We didn't see any complexity because the setup of New Relic on the client side or the application side is more of the agent configuration.

Once your agents are configured in the pre-prod or production environment, the feed used to be taken automatically. The only thing is you have to open the proxy to the New Relic system. If that is done, the rest is taken care of automatically. I don't see any challenge.

For the setup, we had one person from the customer IT who coordinated with the network team and got the proxy opened, and then tested connectivity between the on-premise site and New Relic data center. 

Later on, we had one person for configuration because sometimes, we also did data masking when we wanted to mask certain data. We didn't want that feed to go to the New Relic data center. We didn't want that data to be exposed. To query the system, there were queries available in the New Relic documentation, and we used to follow that. We also had a customized dashboard. We could prepare our own dashboard for our critical use cases such as payments.

I would rate it a four out of five in terms of ROI. 

If I remember it correctly, the pricing was based on the core, and the monthly subscription used to cost us $1,500 or $2,000. 

We had pre-prod and production services. Costing was different for pre-prod and production. For pre-prod, it was 40% less than the production service cost. It was a combined package. 

With our licensing, we could only query three months of data from the New Relic system. When we wanted to have the historical information, they said that it is going to be an additional licensing at an additional cost.

You have to see the costs. If you want to scale to a larger system or you want to implement New Relic for the entire enterprise, the cost is going to be high because you have to run hundreds of servers. If you take the frontend applications, mobile applications, and required servers, there will be a huge load and traffic. Dynatrace is one of the alternatives. Our last customer wanted to scale, and they found Dynatrace to be better than New Relic in terms of features and price. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. It is one of the best products. The customer used it for more than four years before moving to Dynatrace. We were happy with it. The alert mechanism and other features were quite good. 

New Relic APM is an application monitoring tool.

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.

New Relic APM could improve error debugging and the correlation with the logs. We are receiving some alerts or alarms but we need to correlate with the error log, but it is difficult if it is more than seven months retention period, it is hard to trace. We need this especially for getting historical information. 

Within short periods of monitoring, we do not have a problem it is only when it crosses the retention period that we are not able to correlate the errors with the log.

I have been using New Relic APM for approximately two years.

New Relic APM is stable. In the last two years, we have not faced any stability issues. If the vendor is having a maintenance issue they will notify us in advance.

I rate the stability of New Relic APM a six out of ten.

They are a costly solution and the stability should be better for the price.

The scalability of New Relic APM is good.

There are two types of users, one is the basic user which is free and has limitations. We have approximately 40 basic users. The second type of user is pro which does not have the limitations of the basic user. We have 10 pro users.

The support from New Relic APM is good. We create a ticket, and immediately after we have the support. 

I rate the support from New Relic APM a five out of five.

We were using another solution previously. New Relic APM was picked by the organization because they preferred it, and this is why we switched. New Relic APM is easier to configure.

The initial setup of New Relic APM is simple.

The price of New Relic APM could be less expensive. We are using the New Relic APM pro account and it is more costly. When compared to competitors the solution's pricing should be much more realistic.

I rate the price of New Relic APM a one out of five.

We evaluated other solutions, such as Dynatrace and Datadog. When comparing New Relic APM to other monitoring tools, it's not complex and is similar in features.

I rate New Relic APM a six out of ten.

The use case for this solution is the same as Azure Monitor. They have the same coverage for the use case. In the end, we switched to Azure Monitor.

It is for the application quality process and the live system support monitoring.

We like the performance of the product. It's very good, very reliable.

All features are all capable to responding to our requirements. There's no problem on this side. 

The solution can scale. 

The initial setup isn't a big deal. Our admins can handle it. 

The solution is quite expensive. 

We've been using the solution for about two years at this point. It hasn't been too long. 

It's stable. It is reliable. The performance has been good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable. It's not a problem to expand as necessary. 

We have two or three users on the product right now. 

Previously, we did not use other application performance management products.

We also use Azure Monitor. They are very much the same. However, we've since moved over to Azure Monitor.

It's not as straightforward a setup as Azure Monitor. Then again, we have admins, and they were managing that part. It's not a big deal.

We have two admins that can handle deployment and maintenance. 

The price is an issue. It's quite expensive.

That said, I can't speak to the exact pricing. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using and if it's the latest version or not. 

We'd recommend the product if budgeting is not a concern for a company.

I'd rate it nine out of ten. We were pretty happy with its capabilities. 

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 were using New Relic to build performance, application monitoring, security aspects, infrastructure, exporting from databases, lower-performance tips, and trying to identify deadlocks.

Yes. However we dropped due to not able to achieve RoI due to high cost

The most valuable feature is application monitoring.

The main reason we switched away from New Relic is that the cost is too high. They should bring the pricing down to be more competitive.

I would like to see the capacity planning improved.

The security standard and compliance are areas that should be improved.

We had been using New Relic APM for a few years and have now switched to DataDog.

There is no question about this product's stability. It is very good and I would continue to use it, but the price has caused the organization to move on to the DataDog solution.

New Relic is a scalable solution. I have between 10 and 15 large customers who use it.

I have never been in contact with technical support. I am comfortable with using the product.

We have switched away from New Relic and have begun to use DataDog.

This is a cloud-based solution that doesn't need to be installed.

This is an expensive tool.

This is one of the best tools that I have used. I have recommended it to customers in the past and would continue to do so. In summary, this is a very good product and the only real problem is that the cost is on the higher side.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use New Relic APM to monitor our public cloud-hosted application and infrastructure.

Not so far. Although, we haven't really got a very mature system of defining our application processes from end-to-end and certainly not our client-centric impact.

I'm reasonably satisfied. We haven't run the rule over it too much because it hasn't been a massive investment.

It has been quite valuable to demonstrate how we can change our views for our services due to their service. It has proved value so far.

We don't have any problems with this solution.

The configuration isn't terrible when compared with other products.

It does everything we wanted it to do. We haven't been too critical in our thinking about where it can improve.

There really is nothing that stands out with New Relic. With the insight, I think it will be found lacking for its report aggregation capabilities. How granular I could go down at looking at certain data, especially related to the operations, is limited.

The API integrations that they have for us to automate our configuration was fine, but I think for some of these tools, it was over-engineering for us to try and automate any of that. So, we just use the user interfaces.

I have been using New Relic APM for approximately two months.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable solution. We have not encountered any issues. We're not plugging too much traffic into it. We're not reporting on it heavily. It's not feeding into our service management processes heavily. So we haven't seen anything.

We have not yet explored the scalability, it's too early for us.

There are approximately 15 of us using it altogether. We are called infrastructure engineers, who are third line infrastructure support and architecture people. 

Some of the lead developers have access, but there are 15 of us and we are all pretty similar.

We have not contacted technical support.

We have two custom in-house processes that do our application data flow monitoring. We have manually and in a custom nature, built out a performance monitoring platform in Splunk using our knowledge of the system over the years.

I have used App Dynamics in the past with another company. There really is nothing that stands out with New Relic. It is similar to AppDynamics and Dynatrace.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

I don't think any of these tools are tools that anyone can pick up and install. 

I wouldn't say it was any more difficult to configure than some of the other solutions. It is definitely not more difficult to configure than AppDynamics. 

The price was one of the reasons we chose this solution. It's reasonably priced. It's cheaper than the likes of AppDynamics and Dynatrace, based on how our subscription is.

We looked at Datadog initially and found the initial setup to be far more complex than what we found in New Relic. 

Our proof of concept has been successful.

Getting an order in and reporting is an industry in itself, don't think it can solve the problems it's not trying to solve. It is an application performance monitoring tool. Don't try and make it anything else.

The big problem with Splunk for us is that it can do everything. The thing that's nice about New Relic is it doesn't try and do everything, it does what it does. So far, it does it to satisfaction, but don't try and fill multiple holes in your toolchain with it. It's good at what it does.

We had some pretty informed opinions on what it was going to do. We knew where it wanted us to get, and so far it has cost the amount we wanted it to cost and done everything that we wanted it to do.

I would rate New Relic APM a ten 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.