We performed a comparison between IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager 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 solution is very stable. We never had any issues with stability."
"IBM's main value lies in its integration with its own technologies, which can be seen as a benefit in environments where IBM products are extensively used."
"We detect issues using dashboards that we built on New Relic."
"It has given us better insight into the performance of the system."
"We appreciate the way that this solution allows us to monitor the ongoing status of the UI at any given time."
"The product's initial setup phase was very easy."
"It has prevented failures from occurring in our production environment."
"Support for plug-ins (RMQ, Redis etc.) is a valuable feature."
"The most important thing is that it tells us where the latency in throughput and response time are."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to receive in-depth information about applications. It can detect a lot of important information."
"The installation process is difficult, requiring continuous support and specialist expertise due to our limited knowledge of managing it effectively."
"The user interface was not good."
"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."
"Documentation is one of the biggest things that I have a problem with since its documentation is not clear sometimes."
"The browser isn't exactly reliable."
"Real-user monitoring would be helpful as it would help me to really understand the client-side performance of the application."
"The integration and configuration of this product in our AWS environment needs improvement on the filtering part. I would like it to go more granular on accounts."
"It is complicated, especially in how you interpret the data that it provides. If it had a bit more canned, out-of-the-box features, especially some of the reporting features, that would be more useful."
"The solution must provide better support for Azure Web Apps service."
"I would like a feature where I can turn off alerting at a policy level. Thus, when a policy is inactive, I can shut down all of my alerts within the policy."
More IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager is ranked 55th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 2 reviews while New Relic is ranked 3rd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 152 reviews. IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager is rated 6.6, while New Relic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager writes "Integrates well with IBM technologies, but it's outdated and lacks essential features". 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 Tivoli Composite Application Manager is most compared with Dynatrace, IBM Application Performance Management and Azure Monitor, whereas New Relic is most compared with Dynatrace, Datadog, Elastic Observability, Grafana and Prometheus. See our IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager 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.