Splunk AppDynamics Reviews

We're a bank. We do use the predictive tools for the different products of the bank and the application which the bank utilizes.

AppD improves the productivity of Application Engineers, development teams, and other integrated items. Slowness or leak issue is a nut for the team now. Also, the team resolves or understands the network and query path every easy and resolves efficiently.

Our application uptime, increased by 10%, and overall productivity up by 30%.

Ticket or issue down by 12% over five years of use and experience.

Open to be applied and test any area and suite.

The tracing is the most important aspect of the solution. The way it traces the information within the particular application or within the particular infrastructure is great. That actually helps. Apart from that, all of the data that's in the production APM is good.  

Technical support is helpful.

The solution scales well.

The stability is good. 

We do have a combination of areas that need improvement. We do have the integration, such as end-user integration and experience that could be better. It is not just from the response point of view; it is more from the error and error detection point of view. This is due to the fact that these are all the banking applications as used by the banking staff, not by the end-user directly. Based on the banking staff feedback, based on the staff security or maybe dealing with the capital market, there needs to be some improvement.

They do provide the input growth on a daily basis in terms of what is coming in and how we receive the applications and how many we have. We've now started looking for a particular product that can make sure that it should connect with files and statements inside the product. 

The IO ratio, which we are looking for in terms of a report, is one of the concerns. We do monitor those details from AppDynamics, however, reporting and monitoring could be better.

There needs to be more analytics. That is what we are missing from the tool point of view. We need more information geared more towards helping us in making better decisions. When you do the coding that's for a banking situation or maybe in the incidents or capital market, it becomes very important that how much time I'm investing inside the transaction. A transaction which needs to be carried out for either confirming the payments or maybe either releasing the payments - these kinds of things. What I have seen with the use, as of now, is a bit of a lag when we are running on the global cloud or the public clouds, like Azure or the Google platform. 

Right now, we are fighting between three different stakeholders. With the networks, we have a different chat, with the vendors we have a different chat, and with the application team, we have a different chat. This approach doesn't provide a holistic view. Everyone has their own excuses and everyone has their own reasoning and conditions. 

If it can be able to intelligently provide all the things we need to look at, from a data point of view, that would be very useful.

I would say that I have between seven and eight years of experience, hands-on. However, later on in the time frame, over the last four or five years, I have not has as much hands-on experience with the tool. I'm more involved in various solution discussions and strategy building with the platform on top of the tool.

I would say it's very steady and for now, it's very reliable as well. It's stable. We don't have issues with bugs or crashes. 

The solution is very scalable so far in any testing scenario. It performs very well and gives us the expected output which we are looking to improve. 

We are using the solution for more than 600 small and big applications. We have around 78,000 people, including the back-end staff and the development team, that use the solution.

Overall, technical support has been very good. We're very satisfied with their level of support. So far, it's been very good for the bank.

Positive

We have used HPE BSM (now called MF APM). 

Due to these factors, we switch:

1. Costly

2. Implementation complexity

3. Multiple products and Integration

4. Not end-user friendly. 

I was not involved in the initial implementation. Nowadays, the way we approach the teams, sometimes it's very easy when it's an application with a known language like Python or maybe with Ruby or a kind of Java application. In terms of gateways inside the product, sometimes it is very tough, and sometimes it is very easy to get deployed. We're not using any out-of-the-box security. 

We have used model Train for the trainers and enforced all employees with operational training.

We achieve a great number, in terms of applications user availability increase by 30%. In treading, and agents, needs a smooth performance before the market starts. AppD provide a depth to measure any performances challenges, leak issue or even a chain linked issue story.

The pricing is a mixed bag. In some areas they are reasonably priced, however, in others, it's a bit expensive. 

We look for ease of implementation, diagnostics information shared, and controls to the team for working.

We're just an end-user of the product.

We're using the latest version of the solution. 

The deployment model depends on the solution or the size of the product which we are using, as the banks do have private and public clouds. In public clouds, we don't have much of the production instances. It's mainly the development. The free cloud and the cloud environment are completely on a private or in-house, on-premises solution with different ecosystems.

If a proper study has been done, and the solution makes sense for the company, I would recommend the solution. 

I would like to rate the solution at a seven out of ten. That consideration is mainly due to the fact that it covers a large portfolio of the product. It does have support for many other ERP tools. A lot of open customization is available and the product support team can help to customize the product. I've found this tool very useful and helpful on that.

I use AppDynamics when there's a performance issue with an application, but if it's a network-related performance issue, I use Accedian Skylight.

What I like best about AppDynamics is that it's functional, particularly in APM in Java and .NET.

What needs improvement in AppDynamics is installation. The installation process needs to be more straightforward. Deploying the product is also tricky, so this is an area for improvement.

Pricing is another area for improvement in AppDynamics because its current pricing model is no longer suited to containers and technologies.

The product used to be the best in the market ten years ago, but it now needs to regain its position as the leading product in its niche.

I've been using AppDynamics for ten years. I started my job ten years ago and remained in this area.

In terms of stability, AppDynamics is a four out of ten.

Scalability is the product's performance when you scale, and because the company is a SaaS company, it's not a very big deal. However, AppDynamics uses a MySQL database behind the engine, which is not the best for keeping metrics.

The solution could be more scalable and dynamic in terms of installation and configuration. Scalability-wise, AppDynamics is a four out of ten.

The support for AppDynamics used to be very good, and now it could be better. The support team could be more knowledgeable.

The technical support for AppDynamics is a four out of ten for me.

Neutral

I'm using AppDynamics, Datadog, and Dynatrace simultaneously.

Setting up and configuring AppDynamics is challenging because you need to give specific names to every container and server you deploy. Each name has to be unique, so it isn't easy to think of names in terms of dynamic environments. This means that when you move to microservices, AppDynamics has a very complex setup.

I'd rate the setup for the product as two out of ten.

The pricing model for AppDynamics isn't good. You have to subscribe to a yearly or a three-year licensing, which isn't very handy.

You buy a license for five hundred containers for a very large application, and you only need the containers for a limited time in that domain. For example, you only need five hundred containers once in that specific year, but you must buy five hundred licenses.

The current AppDynamics pricing model isn't fair. It's one out of ten pricing-wise. The solution is one of the most expensive in the market today.

I've switched to solutions such as Dynatrace, Datadog, and AppDynamics.

My rating for AppDynamics is four out of ten because it has a lot of room for improvement.

We're using AppDynamics Server Monitoring for the IT infrastructure and server of the customers.

What I like most about AppDynamics Server Monitoring is that it's easy to manipulate and easy to implement. All solutions have the same features, but what sets AppDynamics Server Monitoring apart is that it's really quick to implement.

AppDynamics Server Monitoring has a great interface. As a developer, it doesn't matter whether it's SolarWinds, Dynatrace, or any APM you're using, but it would matter to the customer. A product must be easy to manipulate or use, for example, AppDynamics Server Monitoring, for the customer, but for developers like my team, there's no pressure, even if a solution requires coding.

AppDynamics Server Monitoring has room for improvement in terms of pricing. If the price could be cheaper, it would be great for both the customer and the integrator.

What I'd like to see in the next release of AppDynamics Server Monitoring is a better dashboard for the customer. The dashboard should be more interactive.

I've been using AppDynamics Server Monitoring for three years now.

AppDynamics Server Monitoring is a stable solution. Its stability is good.

AppDynamics Server Monitoring can be scaled up and down according to your needs, so it's a scalable solution.

I find the technical support for AppDynamics Server Monitoring interactive and quick. You can get support WebEx sessions, and if I would rate support from one to five, I'd give a five.

My company works with a lot of solutions as it's an integration provider. For example, I work with AppDynamics Server Monitoring, and a colleague works with SolarWinds. Another colleague works with Kubernetes. The team works with different monitoring solutions, including Nagios.

Setting up AppDynamics Server Monitoring is easy. It's not hard to implement. It's straightforward and quick, and even the architecture isn't that complex. The solution is easy to implement.

I'm rating the setup for AppDynamics Server Monitoring five out of five because it's very easy. Sometimes, you might find some difficulty, but the support team can help resolve that quickly.

The pricing for AppDynamics Server Monitoring in Africa and the Middle East is too expensive, so it's very hard to sell it to customers. If there could be different pricing or package for the region, that would be great.

My company pays for the license of AppDynamics Server Monitoring on a per-agent, per-server basis. It's $700 to $1000 per server, and it's paid annually. My company is on a subscription model for the solution.

On a scale of one to five, where one is expensive and five is cheap, my rating for the price of AppDynamics Server Monitoring is a two.

I'm using the monitoring solution AppDynamics Server Monitoring.

My rating for AppDynamics Server Monitoring is nine out of ten.

My company is a reseller/integrator of AppDynamics Server Monitoring.

We use this solution to monitor the response time in CPU and usage and for URL monitoring.

I find troubleshooting is quicker because we can drill down into the end points and see which endpoints are getting critical. Visibility-wise, the micro details are easy to find. 

I have been using this solution for four years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

Support for this solution is good but communication could be improved.

I have previously used SolarWinds. Compared to that, I find AppDynamics better.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

This solution is expensive.

I am not a user, I am an implementer.

For EUC, one of the use cases would be to monitor online shopping from retail, for example, to understand the client's journey and if they are experiencing any difficulties in, at the very least, making their purchase or browsing, the front-end of a specific customer's online shopping.

The second would be internal applications to determine whether the application is living in an order that allows it to process its workloads. It's quite generic because we have so many different types of applications.

With Real-User Monitoring, the most valuable features are what I have described. We can see the customer's path from their computer to the backend systems. It gives us full visibility end-to-end, and if there are any issues, we can observe and record them to improve application performance quality. In addition to the EUC, you can add synthetic transactions, where you can see from every point if your application is performing adequately in terms of reachability if you are running a global site.

As AppDynamics partners, we are fully aware of the roadmap, but I would like them to enhance their SAP monitoring.

One of the features that I would like to see is centralized agent management in the platform console.

While I am not expecting it in the next release, I would want more centralized management of the agent in the platform and better support.

I've been working with AppDynamics Browser Real-User Monitoring for six years. Since the existence of AppDynamics.

It is deployed both on the cloud and on-premises.

We don't have a specific version, we have several instances. I work for an MSP, and we offer these services to a large number of customers.

We have clients using the latest versions, as well as clients using older versions.

AppDynamics Browser Real-User Monitoring is stable if it's quick. Depending on where the application is hosted, for example, the same time it takes someone in Singapore to access an application is unlikely to be the same time it takes someone in the UK to access it.

Scalability is also important. That is not directly related to end-user monitoring, but it will be one of the business cases involving the use of microservices and the dynamic expansion of a solution.

In terms of technical support, they don't need to be faster, but they could be more usable. I believe they can contribute more than robots because they do not always adhere to the same standards. They can be a little more helpful, and I'm speaking broadly because they have good guys in there, but we don't always get the good guys, the good resources. To be honest, I can't say I have any complaints.

I am familiar with AppDynamics, Dynatrace, New Relic, and Datadog, which are the four main ones that we currently use.

When it comes to AppDynamics, we use all of it, all the stack.

The setup is straightforward. I don't see an issue if it's on-premises, but if it's SaaS, we don't install anything other than the agent.

AppDynamics does not usually do monthly payments. They do it on an annual basis, at the very least.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using this solution.

I would rate AppDynamics Browser Real-User Monitoring a seven out of ten.

We use AppDynamics mainly to monitor the application performance.

The most valuable feature of AppDynamics is its ability to track the transactions between different applications.

AppDynamics should improve its ability to track all the transactions.

We have been using AppDynamics for approximately three years.

AppDynamics is a stable product. We rarely had any issues with the solution.

I rate AppDynamics ten out of ten for scalability.

Getting a response from the solution's technical support team is harder and takes longer. Since the solution has a structural support model, it requires some layers of escalation to get the correct response.

Neutral

The solution's initial setup is easy. However, it is harder than Checkmk because it needs to install the agent.

The solution's initial deployment takes about three to four months. However, it's a work in progress because new applications are added every time.

AppDynamics is an expensive solution.

AppDynamics is deployed on-cloud in our organization.

Overall, I rate AppDynamics a nine out of ten.

All the features are useful. When it comes to application monitoring, AppDynamics Browser Real-User Monitoring provides smooth connectivity to different applications. There is an EEM module that is highly visible and ensures a good user experience when customers access their applications on the cloud for a long time. In general, the features are a good fit for our operations.

In user monitoring, AppDynamics Browser Real-User Monitoring should provide a better user experience. It needs to offer an end-to-end experience, including the internet layer and third-party elements that come into play on websites. Instead of focusing solely on the performance of the application web layer, it should have the inclusion of other domains like the internet, DNS, third parties, and caches that affect the user experience.

There should be more options for more options for customizations to third-party visibilities.

Another area of improvement is faster support. The response time could be faster. 

I've been using AppDynamics for five years. However, we do not use the very latest version.

Even in terms of stability, AppDynamics have fine-tuned features. They provide frequent updates, twice a year. So the product is pretty stable. 

I would say the stability of AppDynamics is an eight out of ten. 

You can easily scale it. So I would say the scalability of AppDynamics is an eight out of ten. 

AppDynamics is quite a mature product. You can even increase the scalability without affecting your environment.

Customer service and support are pretty good. The aligned support and customer support experience is quite good. If you raise an issue or a request, they will get back to you within the estimated time and resolve it for us. 

Neutral

I have explored other options. There are other solutions in the market, like CatchPoint. But the problem is we wanted an end-to-end solution that integrates well with our existing systems, and AppDynamics fits that requirement.

The initial setup depends on the environment. For example, if a customer wants a secure setup, I would say it's moderate, not overly complex. 

If a customer doesn't prioritize security policies based on the security architecture and they don't care much about it, then it's an efficient tool. 

I would rate the initial setup a five out of ten for the average user, where one being difficult and ten being easy. Five is the highest rating I would give. It's more towards excellent, I would say.

We have it on-premises because that's where we can slice and dice and offer to the customer. That's what I suggest. If it's ISPs or CSPs, it should be on-premises. If the customers want, they can go with SaaS.

The deployment time varies from company to company. If it's fast, it probably takes a week to get it up and running. But if it's on-premises, it takes around four weeks.

Just two people are required for the deployment. If it's not an existing timeline, then it may require more people. If it's an existing timeline, then it may require more people.

The implementation does matter based on how many applications you want to monitor and how complex those applications are. If it's an on-premises setup you want to pursue, or if it's a SaaS version you want to pursue. All these factors contribute to the overall resourcing. So, how do you want to add into it? If we take a simple scenario, like a single application with two tiers, I would say two resources are more than enough. But if it's on-premises and you have twenty-five applications and a timeline to achieve it within three months, then more resources are required. That's how it works.

AppDynamics Browser Real-User Monitoring is costly. If I have to rate the pricing, I would say seven because it's really expensive, with one being low and ten being high.

The pricing needs to come down. Many customers find it expensive, so that's why I'm rating it a seven.

If you want to have end-to-end visibility into your applications, from users to endpoints, I would recommend using AppDynamics Browser Real-User Monitoring. It's also a good choice if you want visibility into customer conversations.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

We use AppDynamics Database Monitoring to identify high spikes in critical data, which helps us better understand when applications stop responding or are not responding well.

The solution can be deployed on-premises or in the cloud.

Data monitoring is the most valuable feature.

The price of the solution has room for improvement.

I would like the solution to be more customizable to meet our client's requirements.

I have been using AppDynamics Database Monitoring for two years.

I give the stability of AppDynamics Database Monitoring an eight out of ten.

I give the scalability of AppDynamics Database Monitoring a nine out of ten.

The technical support is excellent.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment takes two weeks and requires one architect and one developer.

We implement the solution for our clients.

The pricing is average. I give the price a five out of ten.

The license is paid on an annual basis.

I give AppDynamics Database Monitoring a ten out of ten.

We require five people to maintain the solution.

AppDynamics Database Monitoring only requires users to have a basic understanding of databases.