No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Akamai mPulse vs OpenText SiteScope comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Akamai mPulse
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
64th
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.5
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText SiteScope
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
15th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Akamai mPulse is 0.6%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText SiteScope is 1.2%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText SiteScope1.2%
Akamai mPulse0.6%
Other98.2%
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

Arivu Arumugam - PeerSpot reviewer
Staff Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Lacking in regard to observation of the entire platform but does dynamic injections from within
There is little that's unique about mPulse but since the solution is part of Akamai, you can do dynamic injections from within the product which is a great feature. the UI is quite good. It offers a basic set of features but nothing unique other than that as part of Akamai, you can do dynamic injections.
Hosney Osman - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Solution Architect at Vodafone
Proactive monitoring has reduced response time and has improved capacity planning accuracy
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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We are a worldwide company and we need to have a solution with good performance which the solution is providing us with; it has helped our company."
"The most valuable feature is the solutions overall performance. It is very efficient and accurate for our usage."
"It’s a very good product for performance tracking, I haven’t used many others, so I can’t comment on a competitive level."
"Enables dynamic injections from within the product which is great."
"There is little that's unique about mPulse but since the solution is part of Akamai, you can do dynamic injections from within the product which is a great feature."
"It provides real-time monitoring for performance and availability of specific portions of the website without a significant data overhead."
"There's a good relationship between the price and the licences."
"It provides a great overview for management regarding user experience."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"Agentless data collection supporting a big number of monitor metrics."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"The tool has capabilities other than managing web-based applications, like URL Monitor and EPI Script. It is also easy to use the tool."
"SiteScope is very intuitive and we've been able to accomplish what we want very quickly and efficiently compared to IBM."
"The biggest benefit I see from OpenText SiteScope is that it is a very professional tool, and it helps me greatly."
"They can create workflows for approval processes, which is very useful to support paperless digitalization, allowing effective collaboration between many parties including approvers, reviewers, and engineering documents being signed, annotated, and marked up using this system."
 

Cons

"It needs a more intuitive GUI and more customization options."
"The solution didn't help us much and that's the reason we never used mPulse on a full scale and why we chose to go with Dynatrace."
"The end-to-end distributor tracing connectivity isn't there."
"They work very well, only thing is they need more time to improve and fix all the issues."
"Scalability to larger volume of data seems to be hit or miss."
"In the next release, I would like to see the possibility of sharing the metric from this solution with other solutions."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"You can use OpenText SiteScope for small or middle environments. But if you want to monitor a large environment, it is not scalable. If you can monitor a large environment with OpenText SiteScope, it can be a valuable product."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities. Currently there's one for Amazon."
"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."
"OpenText SiteScope has some limitations, especially with integration between OpenText SiteScope and Remedy, which must be done through middle software."
"May require a dashboard for the data collected"
"The installation was a bit of a challenge. It took us almost two weeks to get it up and running."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The product's pricing should be lower since there are many open-source products that can do the same job with better user interfaces. The tool's pricing is yearly and you need to pay for support."
"SiteScope licensing can be node based-or monitor-based. I would recommend for node-based licensing."
"When Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope has introduced approximately eight years ago and there was not very much competition making the price high. However, when comparing the price of Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope now to other tools, they should reduce the price. It is similar to a legacy tool at this point."
"Licensing is a little steep."
"You have to pay for their "solution templates". Other tools do not charge you for knowledge-based monitoring bundles."
"Depending on your requirements, there are two licensing models available. A simple point model, or an endpoint model."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
6%
Construction Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise21
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?
The licensing scheme for Micro Focus tools is reasonable, and more affordable. It's seen as medium or de-receivable.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?
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 d...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?
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 script...
 

Also Known As

SOASTA mPulse
Micro Focus SiteScope, HPE SiteScope, SiteScope
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nordstrom, Gatwick, DirecTV, MSN, SquareSpace, SAP, Lenovo, Hallmark, myspace, Intuit, Kentucky Derby, Toys "R" Us, Netflix, Newsweek, The Washington Post, Lowe's, Nike, REI, Apple, Sears, Verizon, Wendy's, Huawei
Vodafone Ireland, Kuveyt Turk Participation Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Akamai mPulse vs. OpenText SiteScope and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.