Choosing a ~$10K MSO (Keysight 3000G, LeCroy 4000HD, Tek MSO34, R&S ??)

[tooki]

Hey everyone,

I'm hoping I can get some feedback on my thoughts and testing I've done, to help make a final decision. If I've missed something or gotten it wrong, please tell me! Similarly, if there's some other model I should definitely look at, please let me know!

Right before I started my new job at the university chemistry department in September (where I am the sole electronics tech in the workshop), the workshop got approved to buy a new oscilloscope because the existing LeCroy WaveRunner 8254-M's power supply was on the fritz. In between submitting the request for a replacement scope and me starting the job, someone in another department took a look at the WaveRunner and replaced a few caps, and since then, I haven't been able to reproduce the fault, so it seems fixed. Nonetheless, a new scope got approved, but not something quite as expensive as the 4ch, 2.5GHz, 40GS/s WaveRunner.

Because I only just started in the department, I don't really have a good feel for what types of signals I'll really be dealing with, nor what all the development activities I'll be facing. After talking to some of the professors whose research is the electronics-heavy stuff, I don't actually think the scope demands are that extreme -- they use converters to translate extremely short pulses to longer ones, and it seems that the timing between pulses, rather than their amplitude or duration, is the critical measurement. The one professor designs some of his own hardware -- things like ADCs, TDCs, or FPGAs, with MCUs running the show -- so I suspect some embedded development will come my way, too.

Additionally, my job involves a lot of repair and maintenance of all kinds of lab gear, from magnetic stirrers to mass spectrometers, including setups controlled by Labview or Python.

Based on that, the other scopes in the labs, and the WaveRunner being seemingly fixed, I came up with the following requirements/wish list:
- 4x 500MHz analog channels
- digital inputs for mixed-signal, for embedded development
- serial decode for embedded development
- fundamentally a reasonably well-equipped scope, options-wise, because of the uncertainty of the tasks to come
- arb generator not a requirement, since I have a separate one. Only potential advantage of an integrated one is Bode plotting.

I had the various reps bring by some candidate scopes (and in the case of R&S, bring by the MXO4, though there's no way they could fit that in my budget, and they know it!), so I tried out the following:

- R&S ScopeRider (ScopeMeter-like "handheld" scope with galvanically isolated inputs)
- R&S MXO4
- Keysight MSOX3054G
- LeCroy WaveSurfer 3104z and 4054HD
- Tek MSO24 and MDO34

I didn't request a demo unit of the R&S RTM3000, which would be a candidate, because that's what I used at my last position, so I'm already familiar with it (and can go upstairs and use it if need be).

The Tek rep was kind enough to loan me a signal demo board, too. Its "rare anomaly" and "frequent anomaly" signals were very illustrative, consisting of repeating pulse trains (every 1.6us), with defective pulse trains (containing a spike and a runt) occurring approximately once every 800ms and 100ms, respectively. Every scope could easily trigger on either of those anomalies by using the pulse width or runt triggers. The differences were in even seeing that there were any anomalies at all!


Here's what I've figured out so far about each candidate:

Common to all, except where noted:
5GS/s sample rate (4ch), 2.5GS/s (4ch) 4 analog channels with probe ID/power interface and switchable 50 ohm termination, 8-bit ADCs, 16 digital channels, ethernet and USB, touchscreen with mouse and keyboard support, "all the options" means digital inputs, serial decoders, analysis options, and arb generator. Sample memory given in NNN/nnn Mpts, meaning at 2 and 4 channels, resp.

Rohde & Schwarz:
RTM3000: Great scope in many ways (10 bit ADC, great FFT!), but it'd drive me nuts on a daily basis because its UI is irritatingly sluggish. Nice intensity grading. Bode plot option. 80/40Mpts

MXO4: Fantastic scope overall, with 12-bit ADC, insane waveform update rate, extraordinary FFT, big, sharp display, and a reasonably snappy UI. Nice intensity grading. But to get one of these, I'd have to sacrifice practically all options and go rather low on bandwidth. Handled the rare and frequent anomaly tests with ease. Rotary encoder knobs are made completely of rubber, and one of them stripped its inside knurling already. 400/400Mpts. 5GS/s digital acquisition rate for all channels. Bode plot option.

ScopeRider (RTH1000): Snappy UI, nice waveform update rate, 10-bit ADC, battery-powered, with galvanically isolated CAT IV 300V inputs. 5GS/s for 1 channel, but drops to 1.25GS/s for 4 channels. No probe ID, smallest screen of all, and since it's in the "giant multimeter" form factor, not really optimized for bench use. So-so feature set (though excellent for a handheld scope). Lowest vertical range is 2mV/div, but maximum is 100V/div. No 50 ohm mode. Decent monochrome intensity grading. Decent FFT. 8 digital channels. External power supply. Handled the demo board's anomaly tests with ease. Feels really solidly built. Physical controls optimized for use with gloves. Optimized for real-time more than post-capture analysis. No arb generator option.

Common to all the R&S:
UI tends to require going through a lot of screens to find things.
Nice diagrams of things like triggers, but not super awesome online help texts.
Excellent web interface with high frame rate screen sharing and touch control.
Measurements slow down display updates, but not by too much.
Logic analyzer pods are 8-bit, so if you don't need 16 bits, you can just plug in one pod and not have those extra 8 leads flopping around.



Tek:
MSO24: Adorable form factor (other than the external power supply). UI is snappy most of the time but can get bogged down at times. Fairly light on features. Waveform update rate not impressive. Passable on the frequent anomaly test, took a while to capture the rare anomaly. Mediocre FFT. True multi-grid ability at full resolution. On-screen numeric keyboard refined.

MDO34: Nice form factor with great build quality and little touches like the feet that lock in place under the weight of the scope. Waveform update rate in normal mode not impressive. In FastAcq mode (where all features are disabled), decent on the frequent anomaly test, "meh" on the rare anomaly. Still fairly light on features. UI snappy most of the time. Nice intensity grading. Separate RF input for spectrum analyzer, FFT good. Would have to sacrifice bandwidth a bit to fit into budget. On-screen numeric keyboard a little rough around the edges.

Common to both:
Nice web interface with fast update rate on VNC connection.
UI can get sluggish when decoding serial.
Labels on voltage divisions, but not horizontal divisions.
Dual multipurpose rotary encoders (e.g. one per cursor, or one each for upper and lower thresholds).
Otherwise very light on hardware buttons, many core functions require double-tapping the screen.
Measurements slow down display updates.
Unclear what they're optimized for.
Setting sample rate and memory manually is cuckoo on these.


LeCroy:
WaveSurfer 3104z: In terms of sheer value for money, this is the winner, since they could fit it into the budget with ALL options and 1GHz bandwidth. 4GS/s. Mediocre waveform update rate. With persistence, the frequent anomaly signal took a few secs to capture, the rare anomaly quite a while. No labels on grid divisions (only an option to label the extrema). UI elements sometimes a bit small to hit with a finger, especially near the edge due to recessed display. UI often a bit sluggish, enough to annoy me.
WaveSurfer 4054HD: Superb value for money, with a lightly-used 500MHz demo unit fitting in the budget with all options. UI much snappier. 12-bit ADC, bigger display with no bezel, so on-screen targets easier to hit. Has labels on divisions. 25/12.5Mpts memory. Separate coarse/fine general-purpose knobs.
WaveRunner 8254-M (existing): Monster sample rate (40GS/s) and bandwidth (2.5GHz). Full Windows OS under the hood. UI is usually snappy. Big, sharp display. Tons of display options. Very mediocre waveform update rate: with infinite persistence, slow at capturing the frequent anomaly, almost entirely incapable of capturing the rare anomaly regardless of settings. 128Mpts memory. Unfortunately, this unit does not have the MSO option (which cannot be added after the fact) and has no serial decoder options installed.

Common to all LeCroy:
Identical UI across models: nice layout that appeals to me.
Practically nonexistent online help, other than on triggers.
Nice auto trigger level finder. '
Very much focused on signal analysis, not real-time signal viewing.
No peak or envelope acquisition modes.
So-so intensity grading.
Display persistence only in fixed steps.
Measurements slow down display updates.
Really nice serial decode display in the waveform grid.
Ability to save setups, waveform acquisitions, etc to disk and then import them to a higher model, like the WaveRunner, to use its more powerful analysis capabilities after the fact.
Poor acceleration control on rotary encoders (jumps to really fast at some point).
No web interface, just control via the comprehensive, but data-oriented, Windows-only desktop software (no live stream of the display). (I figured out after the demo units went back that there may be a web interface after all, accessible by changing the network settings on the scope. I don't feel stupid for not figuring this out before the demo units went back, since LeCroy's documentation is extraordinarily sparse, and even the LeCroy rep didn't know when I asked!!)
Irritatingly slow response to signing up for a web account, which is needed to download anything from the company.


Keysight:
MSOX3054G: G models are the same as the T models, just with most of the options thrown in by default. Smaller display with bezel that makes it a bit hard to hit the top status bar. Second-highest waveform update rate after the MXO4, but with obviously higher display redraw (not refresh) rate. Hands-down, by a wide margin, the snappiest user interface of all, with so little lag that it usually feels like an analog scope. They say they do everything in hardware, and it shows. (The flip side is that it's a clearly "old" design in other ways.) Nice intensity grading (but 64-level monochrome only) that looks like an analog scope. Best context-sensitive online help: press and hold any button and a nice text pops up. UI is old-fashioned but easy to use, though a bit cramped on the small resolution of the display. Lots of physical controls, but also completely mouse-controllable. Measurements do not affect waveform update rate at all. Hardware serial decode. Zone trigger seems potentially really useful. Bode plot. Really lousy FFT. Web interface is complete, but screen sharing is not super fast (maybe 3fps). Desktop software is buggy. Probably the noisiest front-end. Just 2Mpts real-time memory (4Mpts single-shot). I'd really love it if the Keysight rep were able to finagle a MSOX4054G instead, simply for the larger display.


Bonus:
Rigol DS1054z: My dinky little scope at home worked approximately as well as the Tek MDO34 at making visible the two anomaly test signals. And its intensity grading is actually nicer than the Keysight's, putting it right at the top alongside the MXO4 and MDO34. Impressive for being a bargain-basement model from 8 years ago. It also makes me curious as to how good higher-end Rigols are. Unfortunately, Rigol has not yet responded with an offer for a demo.


The upshot is, at this point, that unless R&S can come up with an insanely high discount on the MXO4, it's really down to the LeCroy 4000HD and the Keysight 3054G, with me leaning towards the Keysight. The LeCroy would have the advantage of the same user interface as, and high compatibility with, the WaveRunner, and it would bring with it hands-down the best set of options. But it's got the same strengths and weaknesses as the WaveRunner, in that it's an analytical scope. On the other hand, the Keysight would complement the WaveRunner, in that the Keysight is more of a real-time scope that reacts instantly and makes it easier to discover the existence of anomalies. My thinking is that the Keysight would make it easier to identify what it is I want to look at, and that if I really need to analyze it in detail, I could then use the WaveRunner to do so. Similarly, the WaveRunner's FFT is pretty decent, so it could serve that purpose.

Am I missing anything?
Are there any "gotchas" with these models that I don't know about?
Am I giving too much weight to having digital inputs?
Would that be better spent on a separate USB logic analyzer like a Saleae or Analog Discovery?

Thanks for any insight or tips you may have.

[tautech]

LeCroy:
WaveSurfer 3104z: In terms of sheer value for money, this is the winner, since they could fit it into the budget with ALL options and 1GHz bandwidth. 4GS/s. Mediocre waveform update rate. With persistence, the frequent anomaly signal took a few secs to capture, the rare anomaly quite a while. No labels on grid divisions (only an option to label the extrema). UI elements sometimes a bit small to hit with a finger, especially near the edge due to recessed display. UI often a bit sluggish, enough to annoy me.

Siglent rebadged SDS3000X, a model range only seen in the west branded LeCroy and its predecessor SDS3000 was a collaborative development.
SDS5000X or SDS6000A models are of more recent designs.

[Martin72]

@Tooki:

WaveSurfer 3104z:

And this is already the improved version...
We have a WS3024Z in exchange for our previous scope, a WS3024 without Z.
That was a terribly slow, buggy thing, the Z version is much faster but honestly nothing compared to the PC based models.
We borrowed the HDO4034A and were quite impressed, despite the rather small memory.
But then we decided on an HDO6034A (and a WS9054), it is even faster than the 4000, we got the spectrum analyzer option, the power analyzer option and the serial decoder options as a bonus and thus paid almost 14000€ (for the WS9054 with the same options 12000€).
Lecroy has no problem with borrowing equipment for the time being and I would only buy directly from them, not from dealers.
I don't know Tek and Keysight, to get something similar to the HDO, only the 6000A would come into question with Siglent, possibly the new DSO7000, which according to siglent eu should be on the market this year, like the larger lecroys it is a pc-based scope.
An MXO4 is also very appealing to me, even if it is not a pc-based scope and therefore lacks the corresponding cpu/ram expansion options.

[nctnico]

@Tooki: Did you look at any of the Yokogawa models?

For embedded development, you will want to get the deepest memory money can buy. The Keysight is likely the worst choice as the memory is shared across 4 to 8 different sections leaving you with 1/4th or even 1/8th of the memory depth it says on the badge (which is already a super small amount according to today's standards).

[jonpaul]

Used Yokogawa digital scopes since 1995.

Have several DL7440.

The later MSO Yokogawa DLM2440>>3440 (?) may be what you want.

Jon

[tautech]

........... the 6000A would come into question with Siglent, possibly the new SDS7000A, which according to siglent eu should be on the market this year, like the larger lecroys it is a pc-based scope.

It might be beyond tooki's budget however as the base model will be 2 GHz BW which for SDS6204A (top 6000 model) is already $9990.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds7000a-dsos-coming/

[bozidarms]

No doubt - LeCroy
Unmatched signal analysis capability.

[mk_]

Are generic currentprobes and diffprobes aviable or branded ones?

As there are some nice tools inhouse - I would go for a tool that`s not aviable at the moment, extending the capabilities

What`s the reason that Cleverscopes or Picoscopes are no on your list?

We use... well... we avoid most of the time the aviable Wavesurfer because of... how it works. No screendump via LAN, slow, I2C debuging is much slower then slow.
For us an oscilloscope is something to show unknown signals, something which is needed to verify something... so there is a lot of configurationtime needed to find spurious signals... to zoom in or find the right trigger... It`s an interactive workflow when using the LeCroy HDO6xxx. But not with the Wavesurfer... that`s not something can be called "workflow" because it`s so slow.

[nctnico]

No doubt - LeCroy
Unmatched signal analysis capability.

If you need that... For general purpose work you'll want peak-detect and filling all the memory even if not all of it is on screen. Lecroys typically can't zoom out which is something that is super handy for doing embedded development work. I have an older Wavepro 7k series with a crapload of options and it fullfills the wildest dreams you can have where it comes to signal analysis, but no way I would want to use that scope as a daily driver. Tooki seems to have a similar model already.

[Martin72]

You can also work quite normally with today's models.
We mostly use our models in the test field, where we certainly don't do any development work.

[Someone]

Lecroys typically can't zoom out which is something that is super handy for doing embedded development work.

And the scopes discussed have several other ways to achieve the same result. In many ways the more flexible windows/views of the Lecroy where the user can freely define the split between the views is far and away more useful than your hacky "zoom out", which while it may fit your construed workflow does not naturally make sense.

[Someone]

Am I giving too much weight to having digital inputs?

Probably, unless you have a known/demonstrated need to time correlate many channels. I've used MSO sections only a handful of times in real situations and it was never essential but just nice to have (would have found the same information by repeating the experiments and moving the analog channels around the DUT.

Am I missing anything?

Costings presented did not include probes. You are already limiting choices to scopes with active probe interfaces for some reason. What is the fleet of available probes already?

Consider looking at a Siglent 6000A + LPA10 to share probes with the bigger lecroy.

[tooki]

Lecroys typically can't zoom out which is something that is super handy for doing embedded development work.

And the scopes discussed have several other ways to achieve the same result. In many ways the more flexible windows/views of the Lecroy where the user can freely define the split between the views is far and away more useful than your hacky "zoom out", which while it may fit your construed workflow does not naturally make sense.

Bear in mind that the WaveSurfer models can’t do this with anywhere near the flexibility of the WaveRunners.

[tooki]

Am I giving too much weight to having digital inputs?

Probably, unless you have a known/demonstrated need to time correlate many channels. I've used MSO sections only a handful of times in real situations and it was never essential but just nice to have (would have found the same information by repeating the experiments and moving the analog channels around the DUT.

Yeah, that’s more or less been my experience so far.

Am I missing anything?

Costings presented did not include probes. You are already limiting choices to scopes with active probe interfaces for some reason. What is the fleet of available probes already?

Consider looking at a Siglent 6000A + LPA10 to share probes with the bigger lecroy.

No existing active probes around. Other than appreciating the basic divider ratio detection ring for ordinary probes, the active probe interface isn’t a requirement, just an artifact of the scope class I’ve been looking at.

[Martin72]

Bear in mind that the WaveSurfer models can’t do this with anywhere near the flexibility of the WaveRunners.

And HDOs...
I wouldn´t go for any wavesurfer model.

[2N3055]

Lecroys typically can't zoom out which is something that is super handy for doing embedded development work.

And the scopes discussed have several other ways to achieve the same result. In many ways the more flexible windows/views of the Lecroy where the user can freely define the split between the views is far and away more useful than your hacky "zoom out", which while it may fit your construed workflow does not naturally make sense.

Bear in mind that the WaveSurfer models can’t do this with anywhere near the flexibility of the WaveRunners.

You need to include active probes into the picture... Many times that makes decision for you. If you already have some probes for certain platform that is big plus. Or when buying new probes, being able to sell "but it will work for other scopes too.." helps too..

If some of he work will be on precision analog (ADCs or something) then 12 bit is plus.

[nctnico]

Am I giving too much weight to having digital inputs?
Would that be better spent on a separate USB logic analyzer like a Saleae or Analog Discovery?

There can be a lot of heated debate around this but in the end you are the one who knows best what kind of projects you get on your desk. Personally I like to have digital channels on a DSO in order to use it as a general purpose logic analyser / correlating digital signals with analog signals. The biggest advantage is that an oscilloscope is already on your desk and hooking up signals is easy. So no need to pull a computer screen + mouse + keyboard near the already crowded working area.

Another question is whether a generic USB logic analyser is a good alternative to a dedicated protocol analyser. For example: When I need to deal with a CAN bus, I typically use a dedicated CAN bus dongle together with software which can capture, analyse and save all data. Ofcourse decoding is still usefull up to a certain amount of data but a CAN bus generally has a huge amount of data being repeated so memory fills up fast with useless data.

[tooki]

You need to include active probes into the picture... Many times that makes decision for you. If you already have some probes for certain platform that is big plus. Or when buying new probes, being able to sell "but it will work for other scopes too.." helps too..

It’s hard for me to guess whether I’ll do anything that would require active probes — my understanding/observation so far is that the faster signals are already on 50 ohm lines.

My former coworker (the one who repaired the WaveRunner) actually built his own active 4GHz (IIRC) differential probes for the LeCroy interface. (So far, with a 3D printed housing to plug in directly and draw power, but without I2C communication, for now.) Whether for the WaveRunner or potential future WaveSurfer, he said he’d share the design with me once he’s refined a few things. (I think he said it cost something like 50 bucks to build, and it’s similar in performance to some probes LeCroy charges 6000 for, albeit with a smaller input voltage range.)

[2N3055]

You need to include active probes into the picture... Many times that makes decision for you. If you already have some probes for certain platform that is big plus. Or when buying new probes, being able to sell "but it will work for other scopes too.." helps too..

It’s hard for me to guess whether I’ll do anything that would require active probes — my understanding/observation so far is that the faster signals are already on 50 ohm lines.

My former coworker (the one who repaired the WaveRunner) actually built his own active 4GHz (IIRC) differential probes for the LeCroy interface. (So far, with a 3D printed housing to plug in directly and draw power, but without I2C communication, for now.) Whether for the WaveRunner or potential future WaveSurfer, he said he’d share the design with me once he’s refined a few things. (I think he said it cost something like 50 bucks to build, and it’s similar in performance to some probes LeCroy charges 6000 for, albeit with a smaller input voltage range.)

Current probes, high voltage diff probes, or even a high impedance low capacitance single ended active probe. If you need to work of wide number of different devices it gets interesting sometimes..

[tooki]

Am I giving too much weight to having digital inputs?
Would that be better spent on a separate USB logic analyzer like a Saleae or Analog Discovery?

There can be a lot of heated debate around this but in the end you are the one who knows best what kind of projects you get on your desk. Personally I like to have digital channels on a DSO in order to use it as a general purpose logic analyser / correlating digital signals with analog signals. The biggest advantage is that an oscilloscope is already on your desk and hooking up signals is easy. So no need to pull a computer screen + mouse + keyboard near the already crowded working area.

Yeah, unfortunately I just haven’t been in this position long enough to have a really good idea of what kinds of projects I’ll have, hence the nebulous requirements. What I’ve done so far is all stuff that would be easily handled by a $400 Rigol, but the laser labs full of expensive, fast pulse generation and detection gear, and the little bit I’ve been told about the one prof’s own boards, makes me fairly certain that wouldn’t suffice forever. But I also am reasonably certain that massive bandwidth isn’t needed either, it being my understanding that the 2.5GHz WaveRunner was acquired at a steeeeeep discount, far exceeding actual requirements.

Another question is whether a generic USB logic analyser is a good alternative to a dedicated protocol analyser. For example: When I need to deal with a CAN bus, I typically use a dedicated CAN bus dongle together with software which can capture, analyse and save all data. Ofcourse decoding is still usefull up to a certain amount of data but a CAN bus generally has a huge amount of data being repeated so memory fills up fast with useless data.

What kind of interface would you recommend?
One PhD student I’m doing a project for would love to do some CAN bus reverse engineering (since Agilent doesn’t document their command protocol).


Is the dedicated interface you’re thinking of analogous to, for example, the Aardvark for I2C?

[tooki]

Current probes, high voltage diff probes, or even a high impedance low capacitance single ended active probe. If you need to work of wide number of different devices it gets interesting sometimes..

I believe it. But again hard to predict what will actually be needed. :/

I know that “generic” current probes and HV differential probes are readily available. Not so much for active probes, correct?

[tooki]

I will add that investigating these scopes has a) taught me a lot about oscilloscopes, and b) showed me just how much I have yet to learn about oscilloscopes! :p

Also, this is what the loaner scopes looked like in the storage cabinet.

[nctnico]

Am I giving too much weight to having digital inputs?
Would that be better spent on a separate USB logic analyzer like a Saleae or Analog Discovery?

There can be a lot of heated debate around this but in the end you are the one who knows best what kind of projects you get on your desk. Personally I like to have digital channels on a DSO in order to use it as a general purpose logic analyser / correlating digital signals with analog signals. The biggest advantage is that an oscilloscope is already on your desk and hooking up signals is easy. So no need to pull a computer screen + mouse + keyboard near the already crowded working area.

Yeah, unfortunately I just haven’t been in this position long enough to have a really good idea of what kinds of projects I’ll have, hence the nebulous requirements. What I’ve done so far is all stuff that would be easily handled by a $400 Rigol, but the laser labs full of expensive, fast pulse generation and detection gear, and the little bit I’ve been told about the one prof’s own boards, makes me fairly certain that wouldn’t suffice forever. But I also am reasonably certain that massive bandwidth isn’t needed either, it being my understanding that the 2.5GHz WaveRunner was acquired at a steeeeeep discount, far exceeding actual requirements.

At least the signal analysis needs will be covered by that oscilloscope so you won't have to concentrate too much on that on your new purchase. There is not a single oscilloscope which is perfect for all situations.

Another question is whether a generic USB logic analyser is a good alternative to a dedicated protocol analyser. For example: When I need to deal with a CAN bus, I typically use a dedicated CAN bus dongle together with software which can capture, analyse and save all data. Ofcourse decoding is still usefull up to a certain amount of data but a CAN bus generally has a huge amount of data being repeated so memory fills up fast with useless data.

What kind of interface would you recommend?
One PhD student I’m doing a project for would love to do some CAN bus reverse engineering (since Agilent doesn’t document their command protocol).

Is the dedicated interface you’re thinking of analogous to, for example, the Aardvark for I2C?

I'm not familiar with the Aardvark. Rings a faint bell though. For CAN I'm using Lawicel CAN-USB dongle and CAN monitor pro software. The software is sold seperately. IIRC I got these from Antratek.

[Martin72]

@Tooki: A nice selection....

I know that “generic” current probes and HV differential probes are readily available. Not so much for active probes, correct?

Yepp, hard to find, only elder used ones.

For current probes, I wanted to move away from the lecroy probus system in order to become independent of it in the test field.
It is no secret that Hioki manufactures such probes for almost all brands and the ones for Siglent can actually be used universally for all scopes.
With the same technical properties.
And they cost just under 6000€...

[tautech]

Lecroys typically can't zoom out which is something that is super handy for doing embedded development work.

And the scopes discussed have several other ways to achieve the same result. In many ways the more flexible windows/views of the Lecroy where the user can freely define the split between the views is far and away more useful than your hacky "zoom out", which while it may fit your construed workflow does not naturally make sense.

Bear in mind that the WaveSurfer models can’t do this with anywhere near the flexibility of the WaveRunners.

Yeah much has been made of this by folks that can't get their head around another way of doing the same thing.
It suits some and not others but scopes at the level you are looking at offer Mem management options thereby pleasing all.
Key is mem depth providing orders of magnitude better zoom out capability than some of the so-called A brands.