New Relic Network Monitoring

Name: New Relic Network Monitoring
Brand: New Relic
Rating: 4.5 (2545 reviews)

Leader

Data for Engineers

Est 2007|Valuation $6.1B|Raised $385.3M

LinkedIn 188K|Website|Web traffic 1.3M|FTEs 3,034|HQ San Francisco, California, US

MarketsInfrastructure Monitoring Observability Platform

Published May 16, 2026

01Common complaints

1) You require first-class packet capture (pcap) or deep packet inspection - New Relic does not provide packet capture as a native capability; partners such as Kentik are referenced for packet-level workflows. 2) Your primary requirement is a classic device-centric NMS (configuration backup, compliance, lifecycle) - Purpose-built NMS tools generally offer more complete device lifecycle and configuration management features. 3) You cannot tolerate variable usage-based ingest costs - Community reviews and New Relic’s own telemetry cardinality guidance indicate that usage-based ingest cost management is an important operational consideration. 4) You operate under regulatory constraints that exclude preview features you require - eBPF network metrics are listed as preview and are not available to HIPAA or FedRAMP customers; verify feature eligibility for regulated environments before procurement. 5) Your team is network-operations-only and does not use or plan to use New Relic’s APM/infra capabilities - The correlation value is reduced if the broader observability platform is not in use.

Deal disqualifiers

Requirement for native packet capture (pcap) or deep packet inspection as a primary capability.
Need for a full NMS suite (configuration backup, deep topology operations, strict NOC workflows) without relying on complementary tools.
Environments that cannot accept preview-only features for required functionality (for example, regulated environments where certain telemetry features are not available).

Documented limitations

eBPF network metrics is in preview and is explicitly not available to customers under HIPAA or FedRAMP as documented in product materials.

Architectural limitations / operational realities

ktranslate configuration and sizing considerations: ktranslate instances typically run a single job type and may require multiple containers for multiple signal types; some configuration changes involve container restarts.

Cost / scale limitations

Flow and syslog telemetry can increase ingest volumes and metric cardinality; New Relic provides tooling to monitor these effects, and buyers should plan for ongoing governance.

Roadmap visibility

Roadmap dates and timelines are not included in the sources reviewed. Preview designations indicate ongoing feature evolution; confirm specific delivery timelines with New Relic.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by user feedback or documentation

Unified troubleshooting context: Review summaries and product documentation indicate the platform enables cross-domain correlation (APM, infra, logs, and some network telemetry) that users report assists in incident investigation.
Cross-domain correlation: New Relic’s network monitoring capabilities are designed to coexist with APM and infrastructure telemetry in the same platform, enabling joint queries and unified dashboards.

Unique selling points requiring buyer validation

Vendor-published internal improvements in detection and remediation times should be treated as vendor-reported outcomes and validated by buyers during procurement or pilot engagements.

Where competitors have advantages

Kentik: Deeper network-centric analytics and flow expertise.
LogicMonitor / SolarWinds / Auvik: More mature device-management and classic NMS workflows in many cases.

03Field reports

Review-platform sentiment (high level)

G2: New Relic is positively rated on G2 with a moderate review volume. G2’s summarized "Cons" often cite pricing as usage grows and a learning curve for the platform.
TrustRadius: Shows a strong score and highlights the UI and alerting; TrustRadius also notes the presence of a free-tier offering.
Gartner vendor reviews: Indicate a large number of reviews on the vendor page, which signals a substantial user base and engagement on that platform.

Community quotes (Reddit / community discussions)

Selected paraphrased points from community threads provide additional perspective: - Some organizations exploring New Relic for network monitoring did so because they already used New Relic for APM and wanted to consolidate tooling. - Discussions about Azure + New Relic include concerns about network-related costs and how to reduce outbound telemetry traffic. - Community threads include negative sentiment about billing practices; these relate to vendor-commercial experience rather than product technical capability. - New Relic representatives have stated in community forums that full packet capture is not a native New Relic capability; third-party partners (for example, Kentik) are positioned for deeper packet-level workflows.

Why customers choose New Relic (from review summaries and product narrative)

Common reasons cited across reviews and product materials include:

An integrated view that places network telemetry adjacent to APM and infrastructure telemetry.
Dashboards and a query language (NRQL) that support ad hoc analysis and investigation.
Reduced time-to-diagnosis when network context is available alongside service and application context.

Why some customers leave / consider alternatives

Based on community threads and review summaries:

Cost growth tied to data volume and modular pricing complexity.
Platform complexity and learning curve for advanced features.
Traditional network teams may prefer purpose-built NMS workflows (topology, configuration backup, device lifecycle management) available in other tools.

1) New Relic internal case study: "Preventing network outages..."

New Relic published a blog describing an approach that combines infrastructure monitoring, synthetics, and a network-focused dashboard. Reported outcomes include: - Vendor-reported reductions in detection and repair times (MTTD and MTTR). Critical evaluation: - These are vendor-published internal results; methodology and measurement details are not independently validated in public sources. - The example combines multiple New Relic capabilities (synthetics, dashboards, infrastructure monitoring) rather than being limited to SNMP/flow/syslog alone.

2) Kentik + New Relic partnership collateral

A joint brief describes integrating Kentik dashboards inside the New Relic platform.

Critical evaluation:

Partner collateral is helpful for architecture and deployment patterns but is authored by vendors/partners and should not be treated as independent validation of outcomes.

3) Kentik case-study style asset referencing New Relic

Kentik-produced case material that references New Relic includes practitioner commentary about deployment patterns.

Critical evaluation:

Partner-authored case material is useful for understanding integration approaches; however, such material is not independent evidence of performance or ROI.

04Best fit

Company size

Most consistent fit: mid-market to enterprise organizations where correlating application, infrastructure, and network telemetry provides operational value.
Smaller organizations can evaluate the free tier but may find the platform breadth and learning curve more applicable to larger environments.

Industries

Common fits include:

SaaS / internet services
Fintech
eCommerce
Media/streaming
Enterprises with hybrid cloud and on-prem networking

Roles and personas

Decision makers: VP Engineering, Head of SRE/Platform, IT Operations leadership
Primary users: SREs, DevOps engineers, platform engineers
Secondary users: Network engineers, especially when consolidation of tools is under evaluation

Best-fit pain points

Frequent incidents where responsibility is unclear across network, application, and infrastructure domains.
Need to correlate service degradations with network flow changes and device health.
An existing New Relic footprint and a desire to reduce the number of separate monitoring tools.

05The pitch

What the product does (objective value proposition)

New Relic Network Monitoring (often referenced as Network Performance Monitoring within the broader New Relic Observability Platform) provides capabilities to ingest and analyze network telemetry (device performance, flows, syslogs, and some kernel-level network metrics) and correlate it with application and infrastructure signals in the same platform. The product aims to reduce ambiguity about whether problems originate in the network by placing network data alongside APM, infrastructure metrics, logs, synthetics, and traces. Key network data types called out in New Relic’s documentation include: - Device performance via SNMP (polling/traps) - Network flow logs (on-prem flow telemetry) - Cloud flow logs (cloud provider flow log sources) - Network syslogs (device event/change context) New Relic also documents an eBPF-based network metrics capability for kernel-level DNS/TCP metrics (noted as a preview feature in documentation).

Target market and positioning

- Primary buyer persona: DevOps/SRE/Platform Engineering and ITOps teams that already use New Relic for APM/infra/logs and want network context without deploying a separate NPM suite. - Secondary buyer persona: Network teams in organizations evaluating consolidation of tooling into an observability platform or seeking to reduce reliance on traditional NMS tools such as SolarWinds. - Positioning: Emphasizes integrating network telemetry with application and infrastructure telemetry to provide correlated diagnostics and reduce the number of separate tools required for incident investigation.

Get a comprehensive analysis of New Relic Network Monitoring including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →

Published May 16, 2026

01Common complaints

You require first-class packet capture (pcap) or deep packet inspection

New Relic does not provide packet capture as a native capability; partners such as Kentik are referenced for packet-level workflows.

Your primary requirement is a classic device-centric NMS (configuration backup, compliance, lifecycle)

Purpose-built NMS tools generally offer more complete device lifecycle and configuration management features.

You cannot tolerate variable usage-based ingest costs

Community reviews and New Relic’s own telemetry cardinality guidance indicate that usage-based ingest cost management is an important operational consideration.

You operate under regulatory constraints that exclude preview features you require

eBPF network metrics are listed as preview and are not available to HIPAA or FedRAMP customers; verify feature eligibility for regulated environments before procurement.

Your team is network-operations-only and does not use or plan to use New Relic’s APM/infra capabilities

The correlation value is reduced if the broader observability platform is not in use.

Deal disqualifiers

Requirement for native packet capture (pcap) or deep packet inspection as a primary capability.
Need for a full NMS suite (configuration backup, deep topology operations, strict NOC workflows) without relying on complementary tools.
Environments that cannot accept preview-only features for required functionality (for example, regulated environments where certain telemetry features are not available).

Documented limitations

eBPF network metrics is in preview and is explicitly not available to customers under HIPAA or FedRAMP as documented in product materials.

Architectural limitations / operational realities

ktranslate configuration and sizing considerations: ktranslate instances typically run a single job type and may require multiple containers for multiple signal types; some configuration changes involve container restarts.

Cost / scale limitations

Flow and syslog telemetry can increase ingest volumes and metric cardinality; New Relic provides tooling to monitor these effects, and buyers should plan for ongoing governance.

Roadmap visibility

Roadmap dates and timelines are not included in the sources reviewed. Preview designations indicate ongoing feature evolution; confirm specific delivery timelines with New Relic.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by user feedback or documentation

Unified troubleshooting context: Review summaries and product documentation indicate the platform enables cross-domain correlation (APM, infra, logs, and some network telemetry) that users report assists in incident investigation.
Cross-domain correlation: New Relic’s network monitoring capabilities are designed to coexist with APM and infrastructure telemetry in the same platform, enabling joint queries and unified dashboards.

Unique selling points requiring buyer validation

Vendor-published internal improvements in detection and remediation times should be treated as vendor-reported outcomes and validated by buyers during procurement or pilot engagements.

Where competitors have advantages

Kentik: Deeper network-centric analytics and flow expertise.
LogicMonitor / SolarWinds / Auvik: More mature device-management and classic NMS workflows in many cases.

03Field reports

Review-platform sentiment (high level)

G2: New Relic is positively rated on G2 with a moderate review volume. G2’s summarized "Cons" often cite pricing as usage grows and a learning curve for the platform.
TrustRadius: Shows a strong score and highlights the UI and alerting; TrustRadius also notes the presence of a free-tier offering.
Gartner vendor reviews: Indicate a large number of reviews on the vendor page, which signals a substantial user base and engagement on that platform.

Community quotes (Reddit / community discussions)

Selected paraphrased points from community threads provide additional perspective:

Some organizations exploring New Relic for network monitoring did so because they already used New Relic for APM and wanted to consolidate tooling.
Discussions about Azure + New Relic include concerns about network-related costs and how to reduce outbound telemetry traffic.
Community threads include negative sentiment about billing practices; these relate to vendor-commercial experience rather than product technical capability.
New Relic representatives have stated in community forums that full packet capture is not a native New Relic capability; third-party partners (for example, Kentik) are positioned for deeper packet-level workflows.

Why customers choose New Relic (from review summaries and product narrative)

Common reasons cited across reviews and product materials include:

An integrated view that places network telemetry adjacent to APM and infrastructure telemetry.
Dashboards and a query language (NRQL) that support ad hoc analysis and investigation.
Reduced time-to-diagnosis when network context is available alongside service and application context.

Why some customers leave / consider alternatives

Based on community threads and review summaries:

Cost growth tied to data volume and modular pricing complexity.
Platform complexity and learning curve for advanced features.
Traditional network teams may prefer purpose-built NMS workflows (topology, configuration backup, device lifecycle management) available in other tools.

1) New Relic internal case study: "Preventing network outages..."

New Relic published a blog describing an approach that combines infrastructure monitoring, synthetics, and a network-focused dashboard. Reported outcomes include:

Vendor-reported reductions in detection and repair times (MTTD and MTTR).

Critical evaluation:

These are vendor-published internal results; methodology and measurement details are not independently validated in public sources.
The example combines multiple New Relic capabilities (synthetics, dashboards, infrastructure monitoring) rather than being limited to SNMP/flow/syslog alone.

2) Kentik + New Relic partnership collateral

A joint brief describes integrating Kentik dashboards inside the New Relic platform.

Critical evaluation:

Partner collateral is helpful for architecture and deployment patterns but is authored by vendors/partners and should not be treated as independent validation of outcomes.

3) Kentik case-study style asset referencing New Relic

Kentik-produced case material that references New Relic includes practitioner commentary about deployment patterns.

Critical evaluation:

Partner-authored case material is useful for understanding integration approaches; however, such material is not independent evidence of performance or ROI.

04Best fit

Company size

Most consistent fit: mid-market to enterprise organizations where correlating application, infrastructure, and network telemetry provides operational value.
Smaller organizations can evaluate the free tier but may find the platform breadth and learning curve more applicable to larger environments.

Industries

Common fits include:

SaaS / internet services
Fintech
eCommerce
Media/streaming
Enterprises with hybrid cloud and on-prem networking

Roles and personas

Decision makers: VP Engineering, Head of SRE/Platform, IT Operations leadership
Primary users: SREs, DevOps engineers, platform engineers
Secondary users: Network engineers, especially when consolidation of tools is under evaluation

Best-fit pain points

Frequent incidents where responsibility is unclear across network, application, and infrastructure domains.
Need to correlate service degradations with network flow changes and device health.
An existing New Relic footprint and a desire to reduce the number of separate monitoring tools.

05The pitch

What the product does (objective value proposition)

Key network data types called out in New Relic’s documentation include:

Device performance via SNMP (polling/traps)
Network flow logs (on-prem flow telemetry)
Cloud flow logs (cloud provider flow log sources)
Network syslogs (device event/change context)

New Relic also documents an eBPF-based network metrics capability for kernel-level DNS/TCP metrics (noted as a preview feature in documentation).

Target market and positioning

Primary buyer persona: DevOps/SRE/Platform Engineering and ITOps teams that already use New Relic for APM/infra/logs and want network context without deploying a separate NPM suite.
Secondary buyer persona: Network teams in organizations evaluating consolidation of tooling into an observability platform or seeking to reduce reliance on traditional NMS tools such as SolarWinds.
Positioning: Emphasizes integrating network telemetry with application and infrastructure telemetry to provide correlated diagnostics and reduce the number of separate tools required for incident investigation.

Get a comprehensive analysis of New Relic Network Monitoring including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →