We performed a comparison between Akamai mPulse and OpenText SiteScope based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Datadog, Dynatrace, New Relic and others in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability."Enables dynamic injections from within the product which is great."
"The most valuable feature is the solutions overall performance. It is very efficient and accurate for our usage."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."
"There's no agent you need installed on the servers. In our environment, we have some servers out of our control so we cannot manage them. We use SiteScope to monitor the availability, the resources on the servers, etc. This allows us to do this job without installing agents so there's no need to take care of anything on the server."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"The Monitor Templates functionality allowed us to spin up monitoring with .csv files pretty easily."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"The end-to-end distributor tracing connectivity isn't there."
"In the next release, I would like to see the possibility of sharing the metric from this solution with other solutions."
"They have not kept up with browser security requirements or advances in GUIs, they switched to a corruptible database architecture instead of text config files."
"They should provide more templates for new vendor devices."
"Direct integration with an SMS gateway for sending critical alerts to the support SME. This will help customer investing in third party middleware solutions for SMS."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"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."
"Sometimes in a huge environment, I think the documentation does not provide the required calculations so you can't know what the required set up should be. You need to test."
Akamai mPulse is ranked 51st in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 6 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Akamai mPulse is rated 6.6, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Akamai mPulse writes "Lacking in regard to observation of the entire platform but does dynamic injections from within". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText SiteScope writes "Doesn't require much custom coding and can run on different platforms, but the types of scripting files you can execute on it are limited". Akamai mPulse is most compared with New Relic, Dynatrace, Grafana, Datadog and AppDynamics, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, SCOM, AppDynamics, Prometheus and BMC TrueSight Operations Management.
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.