We performed a comparison between AppDynamics and OpenText Business Process Monitoring based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of the solution is the fact that it is very easy to use, making it easy to implement...It is a very stable solution."
"The solution helps us save a lot of time on certain tasks."
"What I like best about AppDynamics is that it's functional, particularly in APM in Java and .NET."
"The release management capabilities are great."
"The most valuable feature in AppDynamics is the identifying of the slow responses. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is having our services being available and healthy."
"It has improved my organization because we are able to proactively and reactively look at performance issues."
"In AppDynamics, everywhere I go, there's some sort of grouping and aggregation function, or there's some sort of timeline that lets me zero in more quickly on the traces that I need. They go to more pains to aggregate and bubble the important ones to the top. That removes a lot of manual work."
"The stability has been very good over the years."
"Automates processes and allows reports and statistics to improve the speed at which changes and assets are managed."
"The solution could improve by covering more technologies. For example, it does support .NET Core applications. However, it could be a bit better."
"I would like to see something that lets me set real dollar figures, not just to outages, but to the solutions as well... when I'm looking at problems and have found a problem that I know I need to address. I could flag it off and have AppDynamics estimate how long a person would have taken to find that without it. That would give me a lot of leverage for justifying the existence of APM, which I really need."
"The network diagnostics that they are adding will be really useful. They could add more detail into what is going on in the network."
"The integration ability of AppDynamics with other performance testing tools is an area with shortcomings where improvements are required."
"Additional support for NextGen mobile platforms also needs to be high in the roadmap prioritizations"
"The documentation and training material have room for improvement."
"There are too many installers available for this solution."
"As per my experience, the drill-down feature can be improved at the class level."
"Product documentation is lacking, and sometimes, incorrect. Having better documentation will allow business analysts and data center personnel to rely on the Micro Focus help desk less."
"The solution should offer better integration with other tools from a service management perspective."
AppDynamics is ranked 5th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 155 reviews while OpenText Business Process Monitoring is ranked 58th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability. AppDynamics is rated 8.2, while OpenText Business Process Monitoring is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AppDynamics writes "Very good real-time monitoring capabilities, deep problem diagnosis, and transaction mapping". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Business Process Monitoring writes "Stable with good performance visibility but is a discontinued product". AppDynamics is most compared with Dynatrace, Elastic Observability, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic, whereas OpenText Business Process Monitoring is most compared with Dynatrace. See our AppDynamics vs. OpenText Business Process Monitoring report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors.
We monitor all Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.