We performed a comparison between AppDynamics and Broadcom DX Application Performance Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: AppDynamics is favored over Broadcom DX Application Performance Management due to its comprehensive features, scalability, stability, and ease of use. It offers alerting, release management, dashboard building, visibility, slow response identification, and business insights. It can monitor various applications and manage log files. Although Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is easy to deploy and provides code-level visibility, it lacks tool integration, has performance issues, and lacks support and end-to-end correlation. AppDynamics also has better customer service and support and a more flexible pricing model.
"It is used to test customer behavior on a website."
"Transition tracing is the most valuable is pretty easy and useful, but the user experience piece is also good."
"We are able to correlate performance between tiers."
"The most valuable feature of AppDynamics is Proactive Monitoring and Alerting."
"This solution is easy to use and very powerful, it is a complete tool for us."
"Autodiscovery of application topology, based on real user traffic."
"We're a large organization, so we appreciate AppDynamics' wide coverage. It may not work in all areas, but it has broad coverage. We can use the same dataset for different use case aspects. That is the beauty of AppDynamics. You can coordinate APM, EUM, and infrastructure through one dataset."
"AppDynamics makes it much easier for us to detect problems or issues before they become problems. We have alerting on all of our business transactions."
"We understand for APM, it has the ability to drill down and do the end-to-end monitoring that we are looking for."
"In terms of stability, it has been stable so far."
"I found the solution's end-to-end analysis and flexibility most valuable."
"JVM memory monitoring and connection pool monitoring are valuable features."
"We are able to spot issues much quicker with the use of the out-of-the-box metrics given to us by CA. But we also develop that further with the use of the EPA Agent and expand what we can give and show the business by creating our own scripts. This has allowed us to develop our own self-monitoring and before anybody else sees the issue we are on hand to solve that as quickly as possible."
"We are using the on-premise and cloud versions of Broadcom DX Application Performance Management."
"We use it to create dashboards and executive view dashboards, so our higher up managers can take a look and see where our application status stands."
"We are able to easily and quickly find some of the problems with the applications and coding, and some of the performance problems."
"AppDynamics lacks integration with cloud technology. It probably isn't a good fit for emerging enterprises because it's an on-premise solution, and many newer companies are moving to the cloud. AppDynamics' on-premise technology works reasonably well, but it doesn't have cloud features."
"AppDynamics is dealing with a lot of products and technologies, so we need to have clear documentation."
"The documentation and training material have room for improvement."
"If AppDynamics could do a one-agent function with their actual monitoring effectiveness, it will be the greatest tool."
"This solution is expensive."
"At this time, we don't have much visibility on the virtual environment, monitoring, and all other things. We have visibility only for database monitoring, and we have noticed performance impact when deploying database agents on the database server. We got to know this from AppDynamics support also that we should not deploy database agents from the database server. When agents are deployed on the same server and the database is monitored from there, we are not getting database server metrics. Therefore, we don't have those insights, and sometimes, we struggle because of that. They can improve this functionality so that we do not have a performance impact, and we can deploy anywhere. This would help us a lot. In terms of end-user monitoring, currently, it is not working for us because there are some complexities. It is a little complicated, and it takes a little bit of time to understand where you need to make changes. It would be very helpful if they can provide some template designs for end-user monitoring. When our servers are running on VMs, we don't get many insights from the VM side. I don't know whether it is possible to have visibility beyond the database, server, and application and whether there are some features where we can deploy AppDynamics on VMs as well. Such functionality would give us more control over storage, VM, OS, and database. It will also provide complete visibility of our hardware and software."
"Rolling out version upgrades is a difficult job at times."
"It could do with more than one data centre/multiple AWS accounts in a pane of glass. Also, improved scalability to large environments would be helpful."
"System incident analysis and performance monitoring need improvement."
"A CA APM agent takes a lot of memory. That is one disadvantage. If you configure CA APM correctly it will still consume around 15 to 20 percent of memory."
"The solution still needs the administrator of APM to know a lot more to configure and control everything. So it's a headache for the administrator to do the daily jobs."
"Lacks some integration between all the tools."
"The interface is getting a little old."
"The APM SQL feature doesn't perform like we would like it to. I know that's a new feature with 10.5, so it may be one of those things that gets a little better, but it should run faster."
"Its profiling. The uniqueness instead of me looking at sampling data, I need to know the m-1 event that actually triggered my scenario where that m event caused a catastrophic event, like a ripple effect; I need to know that m-1. What triggered my major event means I need to understand the event that triggered it and before the cause of that event itself."
"I think as we're all moving forward to automated deployments, it'd be nice to have that out-of-the-box with this product."
More Broadcom DX Application Performance Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
AppDynamics is ranked 2nd in Container Monitoring with 155 reviews while Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is ranked 4th in Container Monitoring with 161 reviews. AppDynamics is rated 8.2, while Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AppDynamics writes "Very good real-time monitoring capabilities, deep problem diagnosis, and transaction mapping". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Broadcom DX Application Performance Management writes "Provides efficiency in migration and DAW but requires a high level of administrator knowledge for configuration". AppDynamics is most compared with Dynatrace, Elastic Observability, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic, whereas Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is most compared with Dynatrace, VMware Aria Operations for Applications, BMC TrueSight Operations Management and New Relic. See our AppDynamics vs. Broadcom DX Application Performance Management report.
See our list of best Container Monitoring vendors and best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors.
We monitor all Container Monitoring 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.
AppDynamics, New Relic & CA Technologies?
It all depends on the problems you want to solve. They all have their strengths. CA is long in the tooth (old) and with NetQoS has new life being pushed into it, but making it all fit is a challenge. Also with CA you may have to open up the applications to add some other custom monitoring of application package names/methods if you want more detail than out of the box.
Understanding the full flow of a transaction when it talks to other transactions was our key to understanding why we had issues. The Riverbed family of products enabled that for us but even that required work on our part to further decode the MQ traffic better than they did. It went into the MQ Black box, and came out, but did not reveal what happened inside the box. There were requests inside the box that went elsewhere. Those had not been picked up with the tool.
Cons for all of them are that they only sample transactions and can't follow a single user from their device all the way through to the backend database or mainframe. Best using dynaTrace if you want true 100% end to end monitoring.
Saluting Mike, Richard for your sound advice!
Henry
I have found Dynatrace to be much better. It integrates with more tools than any of the 3 listed above.
From my experience with CA Wily, it's more expensive and requires a long implementation, it is also less flexible.
We did not consider New Relic because we did not want to have our sensitive data hosted in the cloud. Not acceptable in our business.
AppDynamics offered a short implementation time, immediate satisfaction and only required fine-tuning afterwards. Also the pricing was lower then CA Wily.
All three are good tools for monitoring web application transactions. Of course, CA has a much broader set of capabilities than the other two - can monitor networks, servers, databases, etc. AppDynamics provides a product that you can use in-house. NewRelic is only a SaaS offering. Which of these is best for you - depends on what you need. If you already have CA deployed, you are probably looking at just web transaction monitoring then. AppDynamics and NewRelic are more current in this area than CA Wily.