Splunk AppDynamics Reviews

AppDynamics has been decommissioned over time for the newer cloud-native apps, and we have been using more apps. We primarily use a Google native holistic monitoring tool for tracing, capturing, log aggregation, annual infrastructure, and server monitoring. As our applications get modernized over time, we reassess our need to have various monitoring tools. To some extent, cloud-native tools solve a lot of these problems. When we are on-premises, we solve these problems with AppDynamics but things are being done differently in the industry now, and many of these problems are being solved with cloud databases.

We have been using this solution for five to six years. We have a hybrid model, and in the past, we tried to take these tools to cloud, but it was not well suited for our use cases. We were slowly and gradually trying to eliminate legacy items used on-premises.

It is a stable solution, but nothing is a hundred percent perfect, and there is always room for improvement.

We have a hosted application set up concerning the AppDynamics controller, and we don't have any scalability issues. We never even moved to the SAS-based model for AppDynamics, and we have our own hosted environment.

Setting up the monitoring agents was straightforward, and there was no hassle. I don't believe it requires a lot of maintenance.

I am not privy to details around the software product pricing, but if I compare AppDynamics Server Monitoring with JVM-based applications, it is a pretty good tool. Even compared to legacy apps such as .NET and ASP.net, AppDynamics is the right choice.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten. However, we currently lack distributed tracing, and we want to implement it going forward.

We use it for performance and transaction trace monitoring. We use it for .Net and the JVM-related work. We look at all the heat maps and the Garbage Collection to see if there are any failures. 

It gives me the ability to trace logs between transactions, for example, a DB transaction or JVM transaction from one hub to the other. I can easily find out where the problem is or where the bottleneck of the issues lies. 

The overall performance of this solution could be improved. The hot-hot infrastructure features could also be improved. If one goes down, the other should pick up automatically. When we patch one data center, the other primary or secondary center needs to be manually started. We need to do a manual sync between the database and the AppDynamics applications.

I have been using this solution for four years. 

This is a stable solution. The only drawback is that it is not a cluster environment and it doesn't have hot-hot features.

This is a scalable solution but we would like more options to hold more licenses. Right now we have 30,000 agents using this solution.

The technical support for this solution is good.

Positive

Before AppDynamics we used a product called BlueStripe that was acquired by Microsoft. 

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. The deployment is also straightforward because we used some of the provisioning tools to package the software and distribute it. Creating dashboards and fine-tuning JVMs took some time. 

This solution has really helped us to improve some of the performance of the JVMs at an early point in coding.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

On-premises

I work with a global bank that operates across Asia, the United States, and Europe. It's a few thousand people. We primarily use AppDynamics for Kubernetes, web applications, middleware APIs, Java, etc. In terms of technology, it's either Java Spring Boot or some of the API calls, and some of the use cases include continuously checking API availability. 

Some use cases are related to front-end tuning or the user experience across the globe. The applications are used across America, Europe, and some parts of Asia. It's a global system, and user experience is what we wanted to measure. AppDynamics is SaaS. I've never used an on-prem version. The controllers are mostly on AWS, while the agents are deployed on-premises.

Transition tracing is the most valuable is pretty easy and useful, but the user experience piece is also good. 

The Kubernetes cluster agent has not yet matured. That's one area that requires a lot of improvement. You have two options for implementing the Kubernetes agent. One is deployed in DocCloud, but you can't download those images from DocCloud for security reasons at most organizations, so this option isn't that useful.

The installation for the second option isn't that user-friendly. Transition tracing for the Kubernetes application is challenging. You have to navigate to a new set of user interfaces in AppDynamics, so that's the pain point. There is an icon you need to click on to get a newer user interface.

I've been using AppDynamics for almost five years. 

AppDynamics scaled well up to around 3,000 agents. The performance deteriorated after that, while Dynatrace could support more than 10,000 agents. We were surprised that AppDynamics' scalability is not so good.

I had a good experience with tech support. When we raised a ticket with AppDynamics, we usually got a response within a few hours. If we set up a call, their engineers will get on the phone with us. That was also reasonably good. 

Setting up AppDynamics is relatively straightforward except for the Kubernetes part. It was all easy for the Kubernetes cluster agent part. We implemented thousands of agents using Ansible, so it was automated. It was about 15 to 20 minutes in terms of pipeline and restarting because a lot of the scripting and automation were already done. 

The AppDynamics license is divided. It isn't one all-inclusive license. Dynatrace has one agent, but AppDynamics has different sets of licenses. You need to define your use case and what you want to monitor. That is something you need to be clear about. Once you know your use case clearly, take time to figure out your target state metric, and go for AppDynamics. 

I rate AppDynamics seven out of 10. In the modern world, Dynatrace is moving toward helping the companies in the current landscape, but AppDynamics is a second-generation company. It needs to adopt more of a lifecycle perspective rather than limiting itself to triage, tracing, etc.

We use the platform for infrastructure monitoring purposes.

There could log management features included in the product.

We have been using AppDynamics for one month.

AppDynamics is a stable product. It doesn't have a lot of bugs. We can fix the bugs at a code level whenever we encounter them with our expertise. It provides an ease of installation as well.

I rate the platform's scalability an eight out of ten.

Dynatrace works better compared to AppDynamics. While using AppDynamics, we have to install different external agents for managing, customizing, and monitoring logs. In comparison, we must install only one agent to carry out the processes while using Dynatrace.

The initial setup process is easy once learned. At the moment, I am a new AppDynamics user and am exploring more ways to make the process easier.

The product is more expensive than Datadog but lower than Dynatrace.

It is a wonderful monitoring tool that manages various aspects such as system resources (CPU, RAM), mobile performance, and infrastructure monitoring. It provides ease of use, alerting capabilities, integration support, and scalability. Thus, it is already maintained. It doesn't provide log management services; we have to install different types of agents for business processes. It is not a cloud-native platform like AWS, GCP, etc. I rate AppDynamics an eight 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. 

AppDynamics is primarily used in our enterprise system management for application monitoring. We extensively use it to monitor end-user experience, including mobile applications. We want to ensure that our users have a seamless experience on our website and mobile app. We use AppDynamics to monitor all applications end to end, and it has been a valuable tool in our environment for identifying and resolving issues quickly.

The best features of AppDynamics would be the code application monitoring capabilities. There are no limitations to any specific application, and their support extends to all levels, including mainframe and custom applications. AppDynamics can also be used as a SaaS model, which is a key advantage.

One area for improvement is the MST model. It would be more helpful if it could be offered as a managed service provider model with more multi-tenancy and features.

The focus is still limited to application monitoring. However, in the next release, I want to see if it could be integrated with any other infrastructure monitoring tool or provide better deliverables in terms of absorbency layers; that would be a great option. I'm not sure how AppDynamics delivers that, and it's an approval delay. That use case will integrate with any monitoring tool to provide the absorbent layer; that is the better option, which I look forward to.

I have been using this solution for seven years.

I would rate stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate scalability an eight out of ten.

We used Dynatrace, which is also a performance monitoring solution. Dynatrace is similar to AppDynamics in terms of its capabilities. But Dynatrace is an expensive affair as compared to AppDynamics.

The initial setup is not complex. I would rate it a nine out of ten. The deployment depends on the use case. For example, taking one application will take hardly a week to cover the end to end.

The pricing of AppDynamics is a nine, with one being low and ten being high. It is high.

I would recommend using AppDynamics integrated with an infrastructure monitoring tool, and it will provide a better benefit.

Overall, I would rate AppDynamics a nine out of ten. From an overall product standpoint, AppDynamics has better sustainability in the market with continued support. They also have a roadmap for upcoming releases that aligns with all the monthly activities.

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.

Hybrid Cloud