OpenText SiteScope Reviews

OpenText SiteScope has a lot of use cases including monitoring websites, monitoring URLs, monitoring infrastructure resources like CPU, hard disk, and memory usage, and customized monitoring scripts. It is also used for monitoring network and network devices. OpenText SiteScope is a very big product with many applications.

The alerting feature helps reduce response time in my IT operations significantly. Alerting helps save approximately 40% of time.

Using metrics calculation from OpenText SiteScope helps me make a benchmark for hard disk utilization, memory utilization, and CPU utilization, ensuring I request the required infrastructure at the right time before facing increases in my applications. I can predict an accurate benchmark from the results provided by OpenText SiteScope.

The biggest benefit I see from OpenText SiteScope is that it is a very professional tool, and it helps me greatly.

Regarding areas for improvement, there may be minor issues, but I have not faced any significant issues with OpenText SiteScope because I have a team that uses this product daily. As a monitoring dashboard user, I do not have any negative feedback.

A feature that could be added is direct integration with a ticketing tool, as it would help operation teams directly detect alarms and alerts happening in our infrastructure. Direct integration with a ticketing tool such as Remedy would be a good feature.

OpenText SiteScope has some limitations, especially with integration between OpenText SiteScope and Remedy, which must be done through middle software. There are also limitations for cloud monitoring as well as for Docker and Kubernetes.

I have been using OpenText SiteScope for seven years.

OpenText SiteScope is stable and does not face glitches or latency issues.

On a scale from zero to ten, I would rate the support from OpenText an eight.

Positive

I have not worked with anything similar to OpenText SiteScope because the other tools I work with are open-source tools, not monitoring solutions provided by my company, and I cannot compare. The support from OpenText is great, with good responses from the R&D department and customer service.

Installation of OpenText SiteScope is easy.

I worked with Oracle Linux, but not with Oracle Vault. I do not have Oracle Linux on the cloud; I have this product on-premises.

I did not buy this product directly from Oracle or through AWS marketplace; this is a product I bought from my company. I am still working with Broadcom products currently. I am not working with Broadcom today. Today, I work only with Oracle and OpenText, specifically Oracle, OpenText, and Broadcom; I deal with a lot of products and a lot of vendors.

I work with OpenText SiteScope, specifically. I am a service provider for these vendors. I do not work with reporting features in OpenText SiteScope. I am using OpenText SiteScope only.

The agentless architecture in OpenText SiteScope is very good for me; it provides me a lot of features related to easy administration and easy integration. I have not faced any issues related to agentless features.

Customizing monitoring templates in OpenText SiteScope is not easy, but it is not hard either. Using a template requires someone who has good experience with integration, monitoring, secure ports, username, and password. It may not be easy, but it is also not hard and sometimes requires learning.

I do not know about the price because I am a technical solution architect and am only engaged with the PLC, not budgeting, financial issues, or licenses. I have OpenText SiteScope on-premises. I buy OpenText SiteScope directly from OpenText due to a license agreement between Vodafone and OpenText.

My experience with OpenText SiteScope is very good, and I would rate it an eight.

We are using OpenText SiteScope for custom monitoring related to end-user requirements, such as keyword monitoring on logs. We utilize OpenText SiteScope for ICMP-based monitoring, including ping monitoring, application availability performance, SSL monitoring, and URL monitoring.

There are multiple features related to OpenText SiteScope monitoring that I have found to be very useful, such as SSL monitoring. If SSL is present as a file in a server, then OpenText SiteScope is a very effective tool to monitor when that certificate expires. It provides comprehensive information related to SSL certificates and log monitoring.

If any kind of required keyword monitoring is present in the log file, OpenText SiteScope has excellent functionality for monitoring. It is very easy to configure and obtain the correct information related to end-user requirements.

The agentless monitoring feature of OpenText SiteScope is particularly impressive and easy to configure and gather information from. According to the operations team perspective, there is no impact related to resource management from the agentless monitoring. It demonstrates very low resource consumption related to its functionality.

Integration related to other applications with OpenText SiteScope is effective, as we are using both functionalities in our environment. The integration for other applications related to alerts and application performance testing is working well. We integrate multiple applications in OpenText SiteScope, and forward the same alerts to other applications such as MOM (manager of manager) for our command center alert escalation.

There is a need to enhance the reporting feature in OpenText SiteScope. Reporting related to performance information for historical data needs improvement to provide better reporting related to application availability and end node availability.

I have been working with OpenText SiteScope for more than 10 years.

I would rate the stability of OpenText SiteScope as excellent. There are no issues from our operational perspective. Once installed, if you do not make any changes to the application or server layer, it works without any intervention.

OpenText SiteScope is very helpful in providing information related to any incidents and issues that occur in our operation process and infrastructure. It provides information for any service impacts within a 3-minute timeframe.

The scalability of OpenText SiteScope rates as nine out of ten; it is a very useful and effective tool.

The technical support for OpenText SiteScope deserves a rating of nine out of ten. My experience with technical support has been excellent from the HP end. Previously, it was an HP tool, and there were no issues from a support perspective.

Positive

The initial setup of OpenText SiteScope is very straightforward. There are no issues. It is easy to handle, install, configure, and upgrade.

OpenText SiteScope is very helpful in providing information related to any incidents and issues that occur in our operation process and infrastructure. It provides information for any service impacts within a 3-minute timeframe.

There is a need to enhance the reporting feature in OpenText SiteScope. Reporting related to performance information for historical data needs improvement to provide better reporting related to application availability and end node availability.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate OpenText SiteScope a 10.

They can confidently store electronic documents in one system of record. They can delete all other copies and rely on single storage because they believe it will store data safely. They can create workflows for approval processes, which is very useful to support paperless digitalization. This allows effective collaboration between many parties including approvers, reviewers, and engineering documents being signed, annotated, and marked up using this system. It provides great positive impact in terms of collaboration business processes.

This was the first time using EDMS Documentum. The solution is searchable and offers versioning capabilities. It is an ecosystem of multiple products, with one set of Documentum consisting of Brava, Xplore, and Content Server, all combined together to provide one service.

The agentless monitoring feature helps with automated alerts, allowing problems to be identified earlier than users would notice them. OpenText SiteScope defines automatic email alerts when services are down, enabling direct server checking when issues occur.

The new version D2 has improved with a smart plan UI interface. However, while still using the classic WebTop UI, it looks outdated and not HTML5 compatible. They are currently in progress to migrate to the smart interface using D2.

Since 2018.

A long-term assessment was made to protect current data. The process involved making backups and cloning the system. Two development environments and one staging environment were created to imitate the production version. After upgrading, UAT and internal testing were performed with users to ensure everything worked properly. Only after confirming functionality in development and staging environments did they proceed with the production upgrade.

The technical support has different levels. They have engineering experts in their field, as a layer one collecting issues and escalating to level two when needed. The technical support rating would be 8 out of 10.

The actual D-Day upgrade took only three days with system shutdown. However, the preparation phase took approximately 10 months.

The deployment model is on-premise using version 22.2. The solution offers REST API capabilities which can be integrated with custom or vendor software. It can handle authentication transaction requests from other server software.

The future X2 pack will include integration with Office 365 and SAP. Currently using version 22.2, they plan to explore these capabilities in the future.

Regarding reporting, they use standard functions of Documentum Administrator to monitor user utilization. They can run jobs to generate data about document quantities, annotations, and sizes in text-based format. They have created custom reports using Power BI for dashboarding.

The user is dedicated to supporting OpenText Documentum specifically, not the entire OpenText suite. The pricing is considered quite expensive, with a new licensing scheme being introduced in the Documentum X2 plan.

Review Rating: 9/10

I work in technology, and my primary use case involves using tools like OpenShift, OpenText, and other microfocus tools to manage processes across different systems.

It allows me to configure and schedule tasks efficiently across multiple servers and in sequence.

The system is really powerful; instead of executing jobs multiple times, I can configure it once, schedule, and apply it on multiple servers in sequence. It allows me to create scripts and automate several processes, making tasks simpler and more efficient. By using templates for systems or databases, I can monitor various needs easily, which saves time and increases productivity.

While working with OpenText, I noticed sometimes teams refuse intervention due to compliance issues. Overcoming control restrictions for different applications could be improved.

I have been working with OpenShift since it came under IBM, and I have used other tools like Phytoscope for some time.

The system is stable, and I haven't experienced significant issues with its stability.

The solution is scalable, allowing me to manage tasks across various servers and create groups for different applications.

Customer service and support are reliable. 

I worked with Telen and NetCommitHub tools for different projects, however, I shifted to other solutions for specific capabilities they offered.

I used to work with other solutions like Phytoscope, SiteScope, and NetCommitHub Productivity Manager.

Setting up the solution was straightforward, involving steps that were easy to execute.

The licensing scheme for Micro Focus tools is reasonable, and more affordable. It's seen as medium or de-receivable.

Read about data metrics to know exactly what to select for your needs; doing so will enhance the effectiveness of the tools employed. Overall, the application is rated nine out of ten.

Neutral

Our experiences with Micro Focus SiteScope have been mostly positive as we can easily work with multiple monitors and different types of monitors pretty quickly. There are a lot of out-of-the-box solutions for us through Micro Focus SiteScope, so we don't have to do that much custom coding for the vast majority of requests that we get for monitoring. There are some limitations that we've run into and some problems every once in a while, but they've been relatively minor.

In terms of issues with Micro Focus SiteScope, some that we've run into were unintended, for example, extra executions of monitors and some false alerts when there were problems connecting to endpoints or there were issues with the application that sometimes resulted in false positives. We had a few issues with the way time zones were configured when the system time differed from the time indicated during the monitoring, but those were just little things that weren't too bad.

As far as the limitations of Micro Focus SiteScope, the types of scripting files that can be executed are rather limited unless you go to some third-party plugins. These are the areas for improvement in the solution.

I've been using Micro Focus SiteScope for six or seven years now.

In terms of stability, Micro Focus SiteScope has been mostly stable. My company ran into some memory leak issues, especially in its earlier versions, but after it was set to automatically recycle every 24 hours, there weren't many issues.

As far as new instances, specifically each standalone instance, I'm unsure how scalable Micro Focus SiteScope could be because there's an upper limit to what it can handle, but in terms of spitting up additional instances, it hasn't been too much of a problem. The horizontal scalability of Micro Focus SiteScope hasn't been a problem.

I've spoken with the technical support team for Micro Focus SiteScope lots of times, and in terms of how good it is, I'd say it's mixed. For example, support is good for simple issues, but for more complex issues, it usually takes a while to get a resolution. A lot of times, my company had to escalate the cases and because it's paid support, you'd expect a little more from the support team.

The initial setup for Micro Focus SiteScope is not super complicated, but it does require that you have administrative access to the server where you're installing it and that, in a way, presumes that you do, even if you don't, so you have to keep that in mind. You have to make sure you have certain rights on the server that may be above and beyond the power a user would normally have.

In terms of deploying Micro Focus SiteScope, it could take between one and two hours depending on how fast it can get through the actual installation portion. There's installation, then there's configuration, but the installation takes longer than the configuration. Upgrading, on the other hand, is a little more complex. You really can't do an in-place upgrade. Between certain versions, you have to uninstall the application after exporting a configuration, then install the new version, and then apply that configuration you exported. I've heard that the upcoming, latest version of Micro Focus SiteScope is getting better at that, but this was still a problem even after multiple versions.

We deployed Micro Focus SiteScope through our in-house team, though we did utilize some consulting partners for troubleshooting and case resolution. Nowadays, we do most of the work.

In terms of ROI from Micro Focus SiteScope, it's been mostly positive. We haven't had a whole lot of complaints from our end users compared to some of the other products we've had. Though the cost of using Micro Focus SiteScope can be fairly steep compared to Nagios, all in all, when we talk about full-stack monitoring solutions, cost-wise, Micro Focus SiteScope is still on the lower end.

The pricing or licensing cost for Micro Focus SiteScope is often bundled with other things, so the cost for each individual would be difficult to calculate. Pricing could be $2,000,000 a year. My company pays for technical support because it's part of the contract with Micro Focus SiteScope. You buy the licenses, but you're also paying for the support.

With Nagios, it's much more bare-bones as far as paying for licenses and the software itself, and my company didn't have to use as much Nagios support yet in one or two years because there weren't too many problems using Nagios, and it's much more cost-effective, so that's one of the reasons why my company is migrating to Nagios from Micro Focus SiteScope.

We are in the process of migrating most of our Micro Focus SiteScope fleet to Nagios though the two solutions are a little different and they're not directly comparable. There's a lot more work in Nagios in terms of getting monitoring started up. For example, we have to understand the plugins and the number of cases, and we might have to do some kind of work such as going in and writing our plugins and scripts for Nagios to do what it needs to do, but as far as getting a Nagios implementation up and running, it's real simple. We could have a server built and configured within one or two hours, and that's from start to finish. A limitation is that Nagios currently only runs on Unix platforms, so we can't run on Windows, while Micro Focus SiteScope can run on either of the two platforms.

I've used two different versions of Micro Focus SiteScope. I started on version 11.30 of the solution, and now I'm using version 11.91.

The actual number of users of Micro Focus SiteScope who administer and use the application is less than five hundred because my company tends to do most of the work and maintains the monitors as opposed to allowing other teams to do that. The end customers or the people who requested the monitoring and get the alerts from Micro Focus SiteScope are in the range of quite a few thousand, numbers-wise.

What I would tell people looking into using Micro Focus SiteScope is to download the trial, try to dive into it, read the documentation, and utilize the user community forum, which was recently revamped, making it a little more streamlined and easier to search. Honing up on scripting, for example, PowerShell, Perl, etc., could be useful as well.

My rating for Micro Focus SiteScope on a scale of one to ten, with one being bad and ten being very good, is a solid seven. My company is not going to have a chance to dive into the new containerized version of the solution when that gets released, but that might push the rating even further up.

My company is a customer of Micro Focus SiteScope.

It's used for monitoring all of our internal URLs, certificate expiration dates, as well as database connectivity, database queries, and internal URL availability.

Being able to do your queries from a single location and being able to nest all your monitors within folders is valuable. It makes it easy to reference or store your monitors in a library, and then you can use that for having a single dashboard that shows you your URLs for a specific product. We have hundreds of products. So, it makes it much easier to track them.

Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable.

It's easy. It's simple to use and straightforward. I've played with some other tools that are not quite as straightforward, but it's straightforward for me. It's easy for me to be able to come in and add in a monitor. For everything I need, it's pretty straightforward.

We have four or five data centers around North America where we have it deployed into a single or a two-server primary backup type of deployment. All those are made available under a single GUI provided by Micro Focus that allows you to put them all together. A room for improvement would be an appliance or a server that would manage all of our other servers so that I don't have to remember to log on to all different servers and data centers. I could manage them from a single location.

We've had it for quite a while, and I've never done an upgrade on it, but from what I understand, the upgrades are not as straightforward as you would think. I know that we've run into some issues related to porting the database through different versions. So, it's a slow slog. The process has been longer than expected.

I don't like its licensing because you have to license it by individual licenses.

I have been using this solution off and on for about five years. I was using it more a couple of years ago. Now, every couple of weeks, I get into it to enable or disable a monitor or set up something, but I don't spend a whole lot of time on it.

It's good. It's stable.

Because you can group your monitors in collections and you can group collections in folders, it's pretty scalable. I've seen worse products, that's for sure.

We probably have a hundred people using it off and on, and they include DBAs, application owners, NOC people, subject matter experts, and on-call staff to support it.

I don't know about the plans to increase its usage. I'm just a consumer of the product. I don't manage it. There is another person who manages it. I just use it.

I've never used their support. If there are issues, somebody else takes care of them. I've never had issues on my watch with the new version. In the older version, I had lots of problems. I had to constantly restart the servers or services because the web service or something else would crash, and we'd have to try to get it restarted, but the new version has been stable.

I'm not aware of any other solution at this company. I've been with the company for just over five years, and this has been the product that we've used.

SolarWinds has a product that you can use for URL monitoring. I used it at home at some point, and it was relatively easy. It was pretty easy to use. It wasn't as big and as bulky as this. Micro Focus SiteScope is a little slow to load when I go to load it up, and it's not as intuitive as some of the other programs, such as SolarWinds.

It was done in-house. There is only one guy for deploying and managing it.

It is expensive. I don't like its licensing. I don't like anything where you have to license it by individual licenses. I'm not a fan of that, but that's just me.

I would advise mapping out the strategy of how you want to manage or what you're going to use it for. I don't know all the functionality of the tool. We use it for three things. We use it for monitoring internal URLs. We also monitor certificate expiration dates, and we monitor some of our database queries with it. These are the three major things for which it's used, and it does them very well. It probably can be used for other things, but I have no idea what those could be. So, map out what you want to do thoroughly and when you deploy or when you're building out your collections in your folders and groups, make sure you do them as accurately as you can. That’s because it's difficult to go back and change them all.

I'd rate it a seven out of ten. It's a pretty big product, and I don't know everything that it does, but it does really well on what I need it for.

Our customers use Micro Focus SiteScope mainly for infrastructure monitoring, but it is also capable of application and database monitoring.

The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring. A significant advantage is that it doesn't require agents to be installed on the target servers for monitoring, making it a non-intrusive monitoring solution.

In terms of improvement, OpenText SiteScop could become a better solution by adding more monitoring templates, like RedScope, to make it easier to track specific technologies. It should also improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools, for smoother interactions and data sharing in wider deployment situations.

I have been working with OpenText SiteScope for over ten years.

SiteScope is very stable, and I would give it a nine out of ten for stability. In the Micro Focus portfolio, it is one of the most stable solutions, second only to SMAX.

I would rate the scalability of SiteScope at an eight out of ten. It can effectively handle monitoring tasks at a significant scale. Our clients using SiteScope are mainly medium to large enterprises, particularly in the banking and telecom sectors.

Technical support for SiteScope needs a lot of improvement. The support team can be slow to respond and often lacks the necessary expertise, leading to delays and repetitive questions. They also request too many logs and information, making the support process challenging. Unfortunately, this issue isn't unique to SiteScope but extends to other products as well. I would rate the support as a three out of ten.

Negative

I would rate my experience with the initial setup of SiteScope as a solid nine out of ten. It is remarkably easy to implement and install, with high reliability and resilience. Notably, it doesn't rely on an external database, utilizing its own file systems. Setting up SiteScope is quite fast. Installation takes about 30 minutes with all the required resources in place. However, implementing monitors might take longer as it depends on server connectivity and credentials, which vary by the client's setup.

I would rate the pricing of SiteScope as a five out of ten in terms of costliness. It is not overly expensive, but there is room for improvement in terms of cost-effectiveness in some areas.

My advice for those considering the use of SiteScope is to ensure that everyone, especially the security team, is on board from the start. You will need their support for server access and monitoring approvals, so collaboration is key. Overall, I would rate OpenText SiteScope as a seven out of ten.

The primary use case is for monitoring the infrastructure and Applications performance and availability.

Basically we're  monitoring the   Servers Resources (CPU , Memory , Network , Disks) and we're Monitoring the Availability of our Servers through Ping.

the most valuable feature we're using is  Monitoring the Urls and APis Web Services and we can configure a Business transaction for monitoring a group of Web Services or specific Workflow

Also We're  monitoring the important Services for proactively tracking the services status  and getting alerts if any application service Down.

also we're using the  SiteScope For monitoring the  company's logs, script files,so we will get Alerts if a specific Keywords  or Errors are existing on this Logs.

 also we're using the SiteScope For monitoring the  Network Services and network Bandwidth utilization through SNMP  

the Sitescoep has a predefined solutions templates which contains the best practices that can be easy applied for monitoring Databases , Active Directory , VM Ware Environment , Microsoft Exchange, iis , tomcat and a lot.

it helps us track the Overall infrastructure healthy status , and can guides us proactively identify issues.

Minimize the MTTR Services and Applications by Pinpointing the issue or the failure on the infrastructure , Database , Network  or in the Web Services so we just  start troubleshooting the part which include the Alert and save troubleshooting the other Sides. 

the most features that I used and was valuable to our customers is monitoring the APi Web Services and URls , also the Log files monitoring was useful

the integration with the OBM is very Good for providing a consolidation View and central management console.

As the Sitescope Solution is agentless  it does not require more configurations and no downtime on the Monitored Servers Side 

the Solution is easy to use and you can create any custom Monitors 

the Monitor Templates is good for saving the configuration Time , you can apply  the predefined templates on prepared text file contains the Server names.

The Reports and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement.

dashboarding has some limitations,when we're trying to create a performance dashboard on the OBM.

we can't Export our reports on PDF or HTML Format , you have to access  the Reports Directly from the SiteScope

I think Reports and dashboards are area for improvements on the SiteScope. 

Also there is no Web UI for accessing and managing the SiteScope , you have to use the SiteScope Local Client .

We have installed two SiteScope servers for managing 2 different sites ,it will be perfect if it has one management UI.

I consider the Agentless technique is a Pros and corns in the same time as we have to open a lot of ports such  like WMi , snmp and ping on all Monitored servers.

It is a stable solution, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Micro Focus SiteScope offers very good support to its users. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

Use I have used the BMC Truesight , All SiteScope and TrueSight are perfect but TrueSight is better for me in Event Processing , you can create any Event Rule to control and manage the Events but SiteScope easy to use with very good features and capabilities. 

The solution's initial setup process was straightforward and not complex. 

It is not an expensive product if we compare it with similar products in market. I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten 

Based on my experience, I would recommend Micro Focus SiteScope to those planning to use it in the future. The tool has good capabilities and features, but the dashboard has certain limitations that customers may find challenging. Customers may face difficulties using the dashboard, and Micro Focus SiteScope has limitations in presenting some graphs and metrics. 

For a dashboard to present certain metrics, I use Micro Focus SiteScope even though I may face some limitations. However, the tool is easy to use and is an agentless solution. Additionally, it allows for customization to met specific requirements.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for agentless monitoring of network and systems infrastructure including Linux and Windows, multiple versions, and multiple "flavors".

The primary use case is for meeting the needs of basic level monitoring of multiple devices across a single-site network. 

When accompanied by APM tools from the Micro Focus stable, Sitescope provides a useful "bottom-up" (technology --> Application) view of performance and availability. Other APM tools provide a "top-down" (i.e. a user-centric view) of performance and availability. 

Sitescope is a very useful solution for agentless monitoring. I must emphasize 'agentless' as this is its biggest advantage as well as disadvantage. Sitescope makes it easy to monitor key aspects of performance, availability, and capacity by collecting metrics.

The aim of Sitescope is to help reduce downtime and provide information to help maintain performance. It does this reasonably well.

Sitescope though is better thought of as a component within a wider Micro Focus-based ITOM/AIOPS solution rather than as a solution in itself.

VM monitoring is pretty good showing good visualizations of how VMs are operating within the context of all the VMs running on the same hypervisor.

The ease of configuration is an advantage as Sitescope simply requires entering a host's credentials and a connection protocol (e.g. SSH, FTP, script, WMI, etc) in order to begin collecting and graphing raw data.

Alerting is basic but functional as a standalone product but provides an additional dimension when used alongside Operations Bridge (which is expensive).

Most modern-day solutions in this area include both agentless and agent-based monitoring in the same package. The lack of an agent makes for a simple installation and relatively simple configuration, however, in these days of highly-distributed computing resources Sitescope is missing a number of critical features.

1. The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened. This is often a problem when connecting multiple sites. It also makes cloud implementations less attractive too.

2. As data must be "pulled" from the system being monitored, there is a reliance on a performant network and a well-specified Sitescope server.

Sitescope scores well for basic simplicity and it integrates well into other products within the Micro Focus software family - e.g. Operations Bridge.

I've used the solution for five to ten years.

If you already have other Micro Focus products, especially the testing tools, then you may already have licenses for Sitescope. Licensing is (typically for Micro Focus) very complex, so speak to your account manager to check.

The setup cost is minimal if you already have the hardware and that's reflected in the functionality.

There are some great pre-packaged monitoring templates known as "solution templates". These are excellent kickstart ways to accelerate implementation - however, be aware that some of them are licensed separately.

If you're considering Sitescope as your sole or primary monitoring tool, I suggest you take a look around - there are better options for you.

Sitescope has been around for many years - since 1996 in fact. Over the years, it has become a highly stable solution. Now though, as Micro Focus now owns HPE Software (who in turn bought Mercury Interactive from where Sitescope came), Sitescope is but a small cog in a very large AIOPS engine.