A shared transaction timeline
Every platform's evidence lined up against the same request, in the same time zone, with the same identifiers.
System performance experts
Follow a slow transaction across every platform it touches.
When a slow or unstable service crosses Windows, Linux, Unix, Apple, virtualisation, networks and shared platforms, Kritical follows the dependencies end to end to find the real constraint and restore a workable result — instead of stopping at the first system boundary.
On this page
Choose where to start.
Jump to the part that matches the problem or decision in front of you.
Use the arrows or scroll to see every card.
Where cross-platform investigations usually start.
You recognise this if any of the following is familiar.
- Every team's dashboard is green, and the business is still waiting Each platform owner can show you their own system is healthy; nobody owns the transaction that crosses all of them.
- A multi-supplier environment with no shared timeline Windows, storage, network and a SaaS application are all involved, and each vendor's logs use a different clock and a different vocabulary.
- A migration exposed a boundary nobody tested Performance was acceptable until a platform, identity or network change moved the bottleneck somewhere new.
Use the transaction as the common language.
Different teams see different fragments of the same delay. We define the request, batch, login, transfer or operator task that matters, then align timestamps and identifiers across platforms. This creates a shared path through systems whose native tools, metrics and ownership models differ, so “not our problem” stops being an acceptable finding.
Test the boundaries between systems, not just the systems themselves.
A dashboard can look healthy while work is waiting at an interface. We trace the transaction across identity, certificates, virtualisation, storage, network paths, remote services and application retries to find where time is really being lost — using each platform's own native evidence (ETW and Windows Performance Analyzer on Windows, the equivalent tracing tools elsewhere) rather than forcing every platform through one vendor's lens.
- Operating systems Relate Windows, Linux, Unix and Apple host behaviour to the workload.
- Shared infrastructure Examine virtualisation, storage, network and identity services along the path.
- Applications and data Correlate service calls, query behaviour, queueing and error handling.
What you get from a cross-platform investigation.
One coherent account of a problem that no single team could see on their own.
A named constraint, with evidence
Which layer is limiting the result, and what would need to change to test that finding.
An escalation-ready handover
Timestamps, reproduction conditions and evidence formatted for whichever specialist vendor needs to act next.
Give every owner an actionable part of the answer.
Findings identify which evidence supports each conclusion, which team or supplier owns the next decision and how remediation will be verified end to end. Where a specialist vendor must continue the investigation, the handover includes the timestamps, reproduction conditions and relevant evidence needed for a productive escalation, instead of a vague ticket that starts the whole process again.
How the work is priced.
Cross-platform investigations are scoped once we know which systems and suppliers are involved and what access each owner can grant. The written scope records whether the first phase is fixed-price or time-based and, where several suppliers must be coordinated, includes milestones so cost stays visible as the picture develops.
Start the conversation
Tell us which platforms and suppliers are involved and what the transaction is meant to do.
What happens once every platform owner is in the room.
The first call maps which systems and suppliers are involved and what evidence each can provide, and ends with a scoped, priced plan before any tracing starts. Subject to the agreed scope and available evidence, an initial phase can move from a named constraint to an agreed remediation owned by the right supplier.
Follow the transaction across performance and security boundaries.
Cross-platform problems cross supplier and operating-system boundaries. Make the responsibility map explicit, then follow the measured transaction into security work when identity, access or controls influence the result.
Follow the transaction across performance and security boundaries.
- Map evidence and responsibility across platformsIdentify the owners, timestamps, change authority and recovery path at every boundary before drawing a conclusion.
- Investigate the security dependenciesMove from cross-platform performance evidence to cybersecurity when the path includes identity, access or control behaviour.
Questions before you enquire
Can you work when several suppliers are involved?
Yes. The engagement can provide a shared technical record and coordinate evidence, while contracts and implementation authority remain with the respective owners.
Do all platforms need the same monitoring tools?
No. We correlate trustworthy native or existing evidence around shared transactions and time, and identify gaps that need a targeted capture.
Can this support capacity planning?
Yes, if representative demand, service objectives and growth assumptions are available. Capacity planning is scoped separately from resolving a single incident.
What if two vendors each blame the other?
That is the exact situation this service exists for. A shared, timestamped account of the transaction usually settles the argument faster than another round of finger-pointing.
Do we need to grant access to every platform up front?
No. We agree access platform by platform, in the order the evidence points, so you are never granting broader access than the investigation currently needs.
Let’s define the next step.
Tell us what you want to achieve, what you have today and when it matters.