The data visualization is everything. The insights tab, as well as going to the Snapshots section and reviewing each Driver and how it compares within the company and the industry is extremely helpful. I have been able to prioritize specific goals and see results as soon as the next Snapshot happens. We now have a no-meetings on Wednesdays policy to help drive Deep work. We also started bringing engineers earlier in the planning phase with our product and design partners. Noting down areas of focus and bringing them to our team retros really has set us up for success. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Sometimes it's confusing to understand what exactly you're looking at. For example, it's much easier for me to review the Insights tab than it is to understand the landing (Overview) page. Metrics like fail percentage and Innovation ratio have in some occasions not reflected the actual mood of the team. It might be because of how it related to the way some questions in the Snapshot are phrased but even so, stating we have a certain percentage of innovation ratio is not as useful as just seeing the weekly trends in the Insights tab. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I use DX as a support platform that is very comprehensive, and what I like most is that through DX we can gain insights that we wouldn't have with other tools. The platform also offers many tips and suggestions on how to direct each action in relation to each driver, which is extremely useful. When we carry out the screening process to direct and prioritize the drivers, the tool provides many suggestions on how to work in the short, medium, and long term to solve possible problems or aspects to improve, in addition to AI insights. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

DX could have a better heatmap for visualization with more distinct and organized colors. Another point is the comparison and evolution of actions; there could be a repository within the platform for us to place analyses, action plans, and record them to track in future rounds and have the history of the teams. The heatmap is a bit hard to see, not very organized, the colors are very similar, and it's difficult to understand the differences in the heatmap. Regarding the comparison of actions, it would be a simple space like a board to write, add attachments, type, etc., where we could add our comments, points for improvement, and track the evolution of items, status, and historical comparisons. The initial setup of DX was a bit confusing at first, even with many trainings and onboardings, but I really learned by using the tool in practice and picking up tips on the DX website. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

DX combines powerful analytics with a very user-friendly experience. The platform is fast, easy to navigate, and provides meaningful visibility into developer productivity and satisfaction.

The quarterly surveys and Pulse alerts help identify emerging issues early, while the AI capabilities in Data Studio make it simple to build custom reports and tracking metrics. I also value the Microsoft Teams integration, which helps bring insights directly into our team's workflow. Overall, DX has reduced manual reporting effort and made it easier to act on developer experience data. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The Teams and Groups concept is useful, but the experience feels inconsistent across the platform. Some reports support group selection while others don't, and default selections don't always persist as expected. It would be much easier to use if there were a single global team/group filter that applied consistently across all reports and dashboards. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The framework as a whole provides engineering managers with useful insights about how their teams is/are performing, taking into account several variables. Most of such insights are presented in easy to follow reports and charts and should be used by a team as metrics on which to improve. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

There is a significant overlap between the aspects that make the framework/platform appealing and the things that make it very dangerous: metrics are great, but will cause more harm than good when used used by people without context.

The framework allows people to compare metrics taken by their face value and without any real context. These comparisons can happen among people inside a team, among different teams and between a team and the industry.

For as much as the owners of the framework/platform say that such comparisons should not be made, they are inevitable - the framework/platform leads itself to such comparisons easily.

It's only a matter of time until somebody will say "this person is not contributing as much as others", "this team is not delivering on pair with other teams", "this team is severely behind what industry expects" and use this information to make poor decisions.

This gets even worse if we consider that the "industry" includes all kinds of companies that deliver software, regardless of them delivering a single use case product or a whole framework that allows customers to build any product.

As an example, any team that mostly does maintenance work, in which it is fairly common to have someone add 2-3 lines of code per PR after an investigation of several days to understand the root cause of the problem, will have significantly lower metrics than a team who is focused on delivering features. A team who works on a monolithic code base with several years of age will have significantly lower metrics than a team who only has to build and maintain the code for a new service delivered 2 years ago.

Such comparisons should be disabled by default. At the very least, these comparisons should only be available at a team level, so that only the people with right context can use such metrics wisely.

Another thing that I dislike about the framework is the AI magic behind some of the metrics. A given metric is defined as "AI weighs each PR based on PR title and description, the size and structure of the diff (files changed, lines changed, etc.), and other structural metadata about the PR.". Another metric is defined as "PRs are weighed and classified by DX AI". All of this is very vague, even with the provided examples, and not really useful for people to know how to improve. The good news is that is vague for everybody...

The framework/platform would largely benefit from replacing these vague descriptions with concrete fact-based rules.

While one can find some documentation online that tries to explain some of the concepts and metrics, this documentation is not comprehensive and sometimes it is just as vague as the metrics' description itself. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I can try to explain what I think is going on with the team or a specific individual based on the data. It also works the other way around: I can spot important data points that make me go and validate whether there’s a problem, or maybe actually a breakthrough. I can use the data to convince peers and my managers when they see it differently, or when I need to push them in a certain direction. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The UI isn’t great for doing side-by-side comparisons, since I have to constantly switch between pages or tabs. I end up using the MCP a lot, but that works best for reports that are just for me. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

DX brings all relevant engineering metrics into one place. I mainly use it to track throughput (especially TrueThroughput) and delivery metrics, and correlate them with AI adoption. Data Studio is also very useful for building custom dashboards and using the AI chatbot to explore specific questions. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

There are not many issues overall. One limitation we recently encountered is the restriction around using a single Slack workspace. In our case, we have a subsidiary with its own engineering organization and separate Slack workspace, and we were not able to find a way to integrate them into the same DX tenant. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The snapshots are great and help us a ton to build our roadmaps and address what's really painful first. Building and running surveys is also great and helps our infrastructure team really lean into the Product mindset.

The interface is clean and simple to use.

The Slack connector works well as well, and helps ensure everyone answers the snapshots.

Performance-wise, I don't have much to say; things are working great so far.

I haven't had the chance to play with the AI/Intelligence, automated features, etc, but it's one of my projects for this year.

I'm not exposed to Pricing and never dealt with Support, so I can't say much on that front. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

When you have a monorepository, it can be a bit confusing to split it into different services in GetDX. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I think DX is pretty easy to use. I like the Slack integrations because they notify me when things are fully out of scope, like PRs needing review, which is really helpful. I also like that I can write SQL queries and pull my own data, as most tools seem to be integrated with DX, making it easier to have one source for everything. The Slackbot integration is particularly useful because it helps me track PRs that are outside of the cycle time, encouraging follow-ups. The ability to write SQL queries is helpful for writing custom reports, especially around AI efficiency and token usage, allowing me to drill into the data in a way that I prefer. The initial setup was pretty straightforward with simple integrations. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Maybe for some of the common things, especially AI, having some more default templates and views reports would be helpful. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I use DX for tracking my team's statistics, mostly productivity. I appreciate having reliable numbers and graphs that I can efficiently share over Slack. The team's stats board is great because it puts a lot of information in one place, giving me a clear picture. I also find the feature that allows me to comment on results or on topics identified as pain points very useful, as it facilitates starting discussions in the thread itself. Additionally, it helps me understand the productivity of team members and identify support trends and ongoing issues. Setting up DX for my personal account was very easy. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I don't find it very intuitive to reach sections. Now of course I've learned, but at the beginning I was having trouble reaching the pages and dashboards that I needed, and had to rely on saved links. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I really appreciate the different types of metrics that DX offers, as they provide great insights into my team's performance. The automated nature of data availability is also a standout feature, making it really convenient to access necessary information quickly. I find the industry benchmarks and comparison data with other teams in my organization extremely helpful. This functionality allows me to understand if my team is lagging or leading, and it helps me identify areas for rewarding or improving performance. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The ability to add management layers is currently not possible. If I have two teams, I'm forced to choose a team and unable to get a combined view of everyone across both teams, while retaining the ability to breakout by those individual teams. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.