Before Catchpoint, we had a custom-scripted integration solution. We switched because it was cheaper, integration was more straightforward, and the UI was better. We were trying to create a UX that hadn't existed before because we understood the need to evolve. We felt we could lower the cost, and Catchpoint would allow us to see into provider networks. 

Ironically, we ended up disabling a lot of that functionality because it became too expensive. Ultimately, we only selected basic tests to stay under our budget. But in the beginning, it was a reason we switched.

It wasn't the only reason, but we had a significant visibility issue with China. We didn't have good node coverage in China with our previous provider. The third reason relates to integration. We needed to seamlessly put products together and have them tell our end-to-end story.

One of our goals was to transition away from managing by exception to actually utilizing the tool. That's why UI became so important. It was the first time we could get teams to use it proactively. It wasn't just, "Oh, there's an alert. Let me go into the console. Okay, yeah. I know what that is. Let's go fix it."

We chose this solution because it made it easy to track multiple nodes of traffic from multiple locations.

We previously used Sitescope. It is a high-speed product but it was not evolving to match the technology changes that were happening in the industry, like syndicated applications, APIs, and different encryptions. It was not handling or supporting those types of things. Whereas Catchpoint supports all these things: single-page application, AJAX, different types of authentications. We wanted to move to that.