For APM, Time to Value is the Ultimate Measuring Stick - so Just Say "Prove It” and Start the Clock

Ever notice that pretty much every application performance monitoring (APM) vendor says the exact same thing? We all tell you how we can minimize bridge calls related to production incidents. We all say you need “end-to-end visibility”. The legitimate players talk about how User Experience Management is a critical component of APM, and how you also need to be able to dive inside your java and .Net applications for code level production issues. Some like Quest say you need to be able to dive inside the database (DB) too. The technical details change to some degree from one vendor to the next, but at the end of the day, aren’t the same data collection mechanisms available to all of the vendors? So what’s really different from one vendor to the next?


Customers frequently tell me that time to value (TTV) is the true differentiator. Of course if all you need to do is monitor some servers, virtual machines, or DBs, then the complexity level is fairly low, and the difference between vendor solutions in TTV may not be significant; but if you need full end-to-end depth and breadth APM, then the difference in TTV will likely be quite large. Our advisory board members and customers regularly tell us that, while all of the mega-vendors and others make the same APM claims, Foglight is the only solution that enabled them to actually attain their holistic APM vision within a reasonable amount of time. In most cases, the other vendors could never even get close to delivering this in their production environments. Foglight is described by some analysts as the solution that takes “an integrated approach to APM”. Foglight was built from the ground up as a modern performance management architecture for modern applications, which translates to the fastest TTV on the market for comprehensive APM. You see some vendors attempt to patch their APM portfolio through aquisiton, which perhaps gains them some valuable new capabilities to fill their critical portfolio gaps, but this also creates a very real integration barrier to rapid TTV. This is especially true in my opinion for some recent major acquisitions in this space that are akin to a heart transplant for an existing APM solution.


So when multiple vendors make the same claims regarding comprehensive end-to-end APM, do yourself a big favor and just say “prove it” for your most critical web app and start the clock. Quest challenges our competitors to beat us at time-to-value for comprehensive end-to-end APM anytime anywhere. Any takers? I didn’t think so.