Request Metrics vs. Workspace ONE Intelligence for Consumer Apps

Request Metrics is great for small web development teams that want to make fast web applications. It was quick for us to get started and we could use the reports right away without having to read through documentation. If you just need to get some performance metrics, Request Metrics is perfect. It would not be so good for a larger team or a complex backend application as it is pretty limited in what it can measure.

Crittercism is best as a bread crumb trail, stack track logging service to debug applications when you have an issue detecting a problem in your application. Its strength is not as a real-time logging platform to allow you to view production logs in real-time. However, it would be an extremely beneficial feature for Crittercism to add.

Incentivized

• Performance charts are really simple and easy for us to understand what is happening
• It was easy to get started and doesn't need administration or training
• It's affordable for our team
• It's fast

• Identifying crashes users are experiencing.
• Allowing us to see how many times the crash occurred.
• Allowing us to see what times the crashes have occurred.

Incentivized

• I wish that it could also do uptime checking of the site
• There is not enough detail to drill into individual users

• Pointing to exact line number of the crash
• A more explicit navigation bar (a little confusing for the user)
• Third-party API specific crash reporting (instead of just listing the endpoint)

Incentivized

We also consider Speedcurve and Calibre for monitoring. Speedcurve was really nice, but the reports were slow. We had to wait a lot to get information. It was also out of our budget and would require extra justification to use it. Calibre was also nice, but the numbers were based on synthetic rather than real user performance. We felt that this wasn't as helpful for us.

A similar product we use is Conviva. I personally prefer Crittercism as Conviva seems to miss things fairly often. Critter tends to catch most issues as long as development has set the app up for it. I've had to reproduce issues several times before Conviva catches it whereas Crittercism will catch it on the first try

Incentivized

• The launch of our project dashboard was much smoother and more successful because we could fix problems earlier
• It fit without our existing operations budget

• Allow us to release iOS versions quicker to the app store
• Help us solve bugs and view bread crumb trails on money-making actions within the API
• Points us to problems in the stack trace with a direct correlation to our route creation aspect in the app

Incentivized