Skip to main content

Q&A: Riverbed Talks About APM

Pete Goldin
APMdigest

In APMdigest's exclusive interview, Paul Brady, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Riverbed Performance Management talks about Riverbed's acquisition of OPNET and entrance into the APM market.

APM: What did Riverbed see in APM that drove you to become involved in this market?

PB: We were having great success with the network operations teams, giving them an application centric view, and that was good, but not good enough. Ultimately they wanted a deeper view into their applications, and a company that could provide that end-to-end view. We thought the distinction between so-called network performance management and application performance management was really blurring. What customers were caring about is performance management.

We felt the world of IT has evolved. Once upon a time it was about the various functions within IT saying: "It is not my fault." That model can no longer survive. It is about making sure you are proactively keeping your applications and infrastructure running.

We also saw a tremendous market opportunity. We see those two markets as very large. There is some disruption happening and we felt a vendor that could provide that end to end capability could change the way performance management happens with customers.

Regarding APM, we saw a very large market, and we saw no dominant player with a major market share. I don't think anyone enjoyed a reputation of having tools that are particularly easy to use. We saw this market as a huge opportunity particularly because as the development platforms evolve, people are going to look at new and different ways to holistically manage performance.

APM: Interesting that you mentioned the blame game because we recently posted an article on APMdigest.

PB: When we started talking to OPNET we both shared stories where people used our products as a way to have a discussion and fix that problem. There is a strong desire to get out of the blame game and to get proactive and I think it is just a natural to evolution.

APM: What attracted you to OPNET?

PB: We thought they had great customer base, a comprehensive set of products, great technology, and there was certainly great awareness of who they were. Obviously, when you do something like this you look at a variety of potential players and we thought OPNET had the most comprehensive complementary suite and really strong technology.

APM: Currently it looks like you're still using the OPNET brand. Is that the plan for the future?

PB: No, I would say we're leveraging the brand. We have Cascade and OPNET, and these are under the umbrella of Riverbed Performance Management, and you'll see that manifested on our website.

For now, all the product names, both Cascade and OPNET, will stay the same. We thought that would minimize confusion, and we will continue to leverage the awareness of OPNET, but when we describe the business as part of a Riverbed we call it Riverbed Performance Management. It will take a year to multiple years to figure out how we want rebrand, and we do not want to move too quickly to rebrand any of the product names, as first we need to figure out how to do it, and second we do not want to confuse our customers.

APM: Prior to OPNET, what capabilities did Riverbed have that would support the move into APM?

PB: We had a product called Cascade Profiler and still do. That was being characterized by the market and analysts as application-aware network performance management. So essentially it collects flow and packets and gives an end to end view of what was occurring within the environment. The network teams kept asking for an application centric view of the network, because that is how the users talk. If a user calls they might say the network is slow but it was generally: “This application is not working.” So we realized great growth with Cascade, and that was driven by our ability to show the application-aware perspective.

OPNET comes at it from a very application centric perspective, so we thought it was a great combination.

ABOUT Paul Brady

Paul Brady is Senior Vice President and General Manager, Riverbed Performance Management. Brady served as VP and GM of the Cascade Business Unit since February 2009. Brady joined Riverbed through the acquisition of Mazu Networks where he was president and CEO.

From 2001 to 2004, Brady served as President of Guardent, a network security company. From 1999 to June 2002, Brady served as SVP at Exodus Communications. Brady joined Exodus through the acquisition of Cohesive Technology Solutions where he was President. In January 1992, Brady founded Business Technologies where he served as CEO until the company merged with Cohesive in early 1998.

Brady holds a bachelor’s degree in computer systems from Hofstra University and an MBA from the Sloan School of Management at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Related Links:

www.riverbed.com

How Good Are You At Blamestorming?

Hot Topic
The Latest
The Latest 10

The Latest

Edge AI is strategically embedded in core IT and infrastructure spending across industries, according to the 2026 Edge AI Survey from ZEDEDA. The research shows that 83% of C-suite and IT executive respondents say edge AI is important to their core business strategy ...

As AI adoption accelerates, operational complexity — not model intelligence — is becoming the primary barrier to reliable AI at scale, according to the State of AI Engineering 2026 from Datadog ... The report highlights a compounding complexity challenge as AI systems scale ... Around 5% of AI model requests fail in production, with nearly 60% of those failures caused by capacity limits ...

For years, production operations teams have treated alert fatigue as a quality-of-life problem: something that makes on-call rotations miserable but isn't considered a direct contributor to outages. That framing doesn't capture how these systems fail, and we now have data to show why. More importantly, it's now clear alert fatigue is a symptom of a deeper issue: production systems have outgrown the current operational approaches ...

I was on a customer call last fall when an enterprise architect said something I haven't been able to shake. Her team had just spent four months trying to swap one AI vendor for another. The original plan said three weeks. "We didn't switch vendors," she told me. "We rebuilt half our integrations and discovered what we'd actually been depending on." Most enterprise leaders don't expect that to be the experience ...

Ask any senior SRE or platform engineer what keeps them up at night, and the answer probably isn't the monitoring tool — it's the data feeding it. The proliferation of APM, observability, and AIOps platforms has created a telemetry sprawl problem that most teams manage reactively rather than architect proactively. Metrics are going to one platform. Traces routed somewhere else. Logs duplicated across multiple backends because nobody wants to be caught without them when something breaks. Every redundant stream costs money ...

80% of respondents agree that the IT role is shifting from operators to orchestrators, according to the 2026 IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous IT from SolarWinds ...

40% of organizations deploying AI will implement dedicated AI observability tools by 2028 to monitor model performance, bias and outputs, according to Gartner ...

Until AI-powered engineering tools have live visibility of how code behaves at runtime, they cannot be trusted to autonomously ensure reliable systems, according to the State of AI-Powered Engineering Report 2026 report from Lightrun. The report reveals that a major volume of manual work is required when AI-generated code is deployed: 43% of AI-generated code requires manual debugging in production, even after passing QA or staging tests. Furthermore, an average of three manual redeploy cycles are required to verify a single AI-suggested code fix in production ...

Many organizations describe AI as strategic, but they do not manage it strategically. When AI plans are disconnected from strategy, detached from organizational learning, and protected from serious assumptions testing, the problem is no longer technical immaturity; it is a failure of management discipline ... Executives too often tell organizations to "use AI" before they define what AI is supposed to change. The problem deepens in organizations where strategy isn't well articulated in the first place ...

Across the enterprise technology landscape, a quiet crisis is playing out. Organizations have run hundreds, sometimes thousands, of generative AI pilots. Leadership has celebrated the proof of concept (POCs) ... Industry experience points to a sobering reality: only 5-10% of AI POCs that progress to the pilot stage successfully reach scaled production. The remaining 90% fail because the enterprise environment around them was never ready to absorb them, not the AI models ...

Q&A: Riverbed Talks About APM

Pete Goldin
APMdigest

In APMdigest's exclusive interview, Paul Brady, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Riverbed Performance Management talks about Riverbed's acquisition of OPNET and entrance into the APM market.

APM: What did Riverbed see in APM that drove you to become involved in this market?

PB: We were having great success with the network operations teams, giving them an application centric view, and that was good, but not good enough. Ultimately they wanted a deeper view into their applications, and a company that could provide that end-to-end view. We thought the distinction between so-called network performance management and application performance management was really blurring. What customers were caring about is performance management.

We felt the world of IT has evolved. Once upon a time it was about the various functions within IT saying: "It is not my fault." That model can no longer survive. It is about making sure you are proactively keeping your applications and infrastructure running.

We also saw a tremendous market opportunity. We see those two markets as very large. There is some disruption happening and we felt a vendor that could provide that end to end capability could change the way performance management happens with customers.

Regarding APM, we saw a very large market, and we saw no dominant player with a major market share. I don't think anyone enjoyed a reputation of having tools that are particularly easy to use. We saw this market as a huge opportunity particularly because as the development platforms evolve, people are going to look at new and different ways to holistically manage performance.

APM: Interesting that you mentioned the blame game because we recently posted an article on APMdigest.

PB: When we started talking to OPNET we both shared stories where people used our products as a way to have a discussion and fix that problem. There is a strong desire to get out of the blame game and to get proactive and I think it is just a natural to evolution.

APM: What attracted you to OPNET?

PB: We thought they had great customer base, a comprehensive set of products, great technology, and there was certainly great awareness of who they were. Obviously, when you do something like this you look at a variety of potential players and we thought OPNET had the most comprehensive complementary suite and really strong technology.

APM: Currently it looks like you're still using the OPNET brand. Is that the plan for the future?

PB: No, I would say we're leveraging the brand. We have Cascade and OPNET, and these are under the umbrella of Riverbed Performance Management, and you'll see that manifested on our website.

For now, all the product names, both Cascade and OPNET, will stay the same. We thought that would minimize confusion, and we will continue to leverage the awareness of OPNET, but when we describe the business as part of a Riverbed we call it Riverbed Performance Management. It will take a year to multiple years to figure out how we want rebrand, and we do not want to move too quickly to rebrand any of the product names, as first we need to figure out how to do it, and second we do not want to confuse our customers.

APM: Prior to OPNET, what capabilities did Riverbed have that would support the move into APM?

PB: We had a product called Cascade Profiler and still do. That was being characterized by the market and analysts as application-aware network performance management. So essentially it collects flow and packets and gives an end to end view of what was occurring within the environment. The network teams kept asking for an application centric view of the network, because that is how the users talk. If a user calls they might say the network is slow but it was generally: “This application is not working.” So we realized great growth with Cascade, and that was driven by our ability to show the application-aware perspective.

OPNET comes at it from a very application centric perspective, so we thought it was a great combination.

ABOUT Paul Brady

Paul Brady is Senior Vice President and General Manager, Riverbed Performance Management. Brady served as VP and GM of the Cascade Business Unit since February 2009. Brady joined Riverbed through the acquisition of Mazu Networks where he was president and CEO.

From 2001 to 2004, Brady served as President of Guardent, a network security company. From 1999 to June 2002, Brady served as SVP at Exodus Communications. Brady joined Exodus through the acquisition of Cohesive Technology Solutions where he was President. In January 1992, Brady founded Business Technologies where he served as CEO until the company merged with Cohesive in early 1998.

Brady holds a bachelor’s degree in computer systems from Hofstra University and an MBA from the Sloan School of Management at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Related Links:

www.riverbed.com

How Good Are You At Blamestorming?

Hot Topic
The Latest
The Latest 10

The Latest

Edge AI is strategically embedded in core IT and infrastructure spending across industries, according to the 2026 Edge AI Survey from ZEDEDA. The research shows that 83% of C-suite and IT executive respondents say edge AI is important to their core business strategy ...

As AI adoption accelerates, operational complexity — not model intelligence — is becoming the primary barrier to reliable AI at scale, according to the State of AI Engineering 2026 from Datadog ... The report highlights a compounding complexity challenge as AI systems scale ... Around 5% of AI model requests fail in production, with nearly 60% of those failures caused by capacity limits ...

For years, production operations teams have treated alert fatigue as a quality-of-life problem: something that makes on-call rotations miserable but isn't considered a direct contributor to outages. That framing doesn't capture how these systems fail, and we now have data to show why. More importantly, it's now clear alert fatigue is a symptom of a deeper issue: production systems have outgrown the current operational approaches ...

I was on a customer call last fall when an enterprise architect said something I haven't been able to shake. Her team had just spent four months trying to swap one AI vendor for another. The original plan said three weeks. "We didn't switch vendors," she told me. "We rebuilt half our integrations and discovered what we'd actually been depending on." Most enterprise leaders don't expect that to be the experience ...

Ask any senior SRE or platform engineer what keeps them up at night, and the answer probably isn't the monitoring tool — it's the data feeding it. The proliferation of APM, observability, and AIOps platforms has created a telemetry sprawl problem that most teams manage reactively rather than architect proactively. Metrics are going to one platform. Traces routed somewhere else. Logs duplicated across multiple backends because nobody wants to be caught without them when something breaks. Every redundant stream costs money ...

80% of respondents agree that the IT role is shifting from operators to orchestrators, according to the 2026 IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous IT from SolarWinds ...

40% of organizations deploying AI will implement dedicated AI observability tools by 2028 to monitor model performance, bias and outputs, according to Gartner ...

Until AI-powered engineering tools have live visibility of how code behaves at runtime, they cannot be trusted to autonomously ensure reliable systems, according to the State of AI-Powered Engineering Report 2026 report from Lightrun. The report reveals that a major volume of manual work is required when AI-generated code is deployed: 43% of AI-generated code requires manual debugging in production, even after passing QA or staging tests. Furthermore, an average of three manual redeploy cycles are required to verify a single AI-suggested code fix in production ...

Many organizations describe AI as strategic, but they do not manage it strategically. When AI plans are disconnected from strategy, detached from organizational learning, and protected from serious assumptions testing, the problem is no longer technical immaturity; it is a failure of management discipline ... Executives too often tell organizations to "use AI" before they define what AI is supposed to change. The problem deepens in organizations where strategy isn't well articulated in the first place ...

Across the enterprise technology landscape, a quiet crisis is playing out. Organizations have run hundreds, sometimes thousands, of generative AI pilots. Leadership has celebrated the proof of concept (POCs) ... Industry experience points to a sobering reality: only 5-10% of AI POCs that progress to the pilot stage successfully reach scaled production. The remaining 90% fail because the enterprise environment around them was never ready to absorb them, not the AI models ...