Also rise time on the Agilent (8.4ns) seems comparable to the Rigol (8-12 ns depending on the model). If you want something with a much lower rise time your looking at a lot more money, something like the PFANG.
This is where I feel stupid - "1V" in Rigol datasheet versus "(nom)" in Agilent's, in other words 8.4ns (1V) is pretty clear to me, but "Nom"? Well if "nom" is more than 1V then it is better, if not then it is just as good. Looking at pulse signal I can see 100 ps resolution on Agilent, not mentioned for Rigol. I cannot see how I can have two pulses 100ps apart if jitter is 500ps. Ramp linearity - "<1%", 0.05%, BUT for 5-to-95% range. They definitely not making it easy to compare, not sure if it is Agilent's or Rigol's fault, but still 1% on average sounds like way above 0.05% even if we adjust it for full range. Lecroy has 0.1% peak topeak, BUT then only in 1V range.
Here is the linearity parameters as they appear on datasheets for function generators in < $3000 range. Please vote which one sounds better and which one is actually better:
Rigol (160MHz): 1% peak-to-peak
Agilent (35 MHz): 0.05% 5 to 95% (not just 1V)
Lecroy (25MHz): 0.1% peak to peak, 1V range.
Hameg (50MHz) : 0.1% for f< 250KHz or < 2% for f>250kHz peak to peak
I need 0.5% for 0-10V. Which one should I choose?
They always hiding their EVIL IN DETAILS :-)