Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apica vs OpenText SiteScope comparison

 

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

Apica
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
17th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (18th), IT Operations Analytics (5th), Observability Pipeline Software (2nd)
OpenText SiteScope
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
18th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
8.0
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Apica is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText SiteScope is 0.6%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

Punith H K - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables users to create scripts easily and provides excellent real-time monitoring features
It is easy to create scripts. We don't have to write any script. Ready-made options are available. We can select, drag, and drop the options, and the script is ready. The solution’s real-time monitoring features have had a huge impact on our service delivery. If we have an application and the script for it, we keep monitoring it. When the script goes red, it indicates that something is not working. So, we check and analyze the applications. We keep track of applications and monitor whether they are live or not. The tool is also useful for monitoring cloud services.
Gyanesh Rahatekar - PeerSpot reviewer
Achieve seamless incident response with valuable monitoring capabilities and reliable alerts
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The GUI is powerful and doesn't require scripting or regular expressions. It has a vast finder for correlation, which is easier than other tools like JMeter and LoadRunner. It's also easy to integrate with other tools with a separate execution environment. The tool is also easy to use."
"Apica allows me to record APIs easily and enhances scripts through options like auto-correlation, enabling me to access dynamic fields."
"The solution’s real-time monitoring features have had a huge impact on our service delivery."
"There are several features that are really good. The first one is the flexibility and the advanced configuration that Apica offers when it comes to configuring synthetic checks. It provides the ability to customize how the check should be performed and it is very flexible in the number of synthetic locations that it can use. It allows us to run scripts from different locations all over the world, and they have a really good number of these locations."
"It uses a basic scripting language, which is easy to learn and customize as needed. Compared to LoadRunner, I found writing and customizing code much easier in Apica."
"APICa allows me to record APIs easily and enhances scripts through options like auto-correlation, enabling me to access dynamic fields."
"From our standpoint, there are a number of valuable features. The WebHooks are obviously really great. The alert framework is really good and then the reporting and visualizations that you get from the dashboards is good. Those three areas are primarily what my team's focused on in terms of usage from day to day."
"The solution captures all our requests and responses."
"Simple deployment: The deployment uses protocols such as NetBios, SSH, WMI, SNMP, which means that any device with any of these protocols will be monitored."
"I would rate the stability of OpenText SiteScope as excellent."
"I find OpenText SiteScope itself to be uncomplicated and deserving of a ten out of ten due to its simplicity."
"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"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 product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
 

Cons

"The customer service and support were a little slow to respond. The browser sometimes checks alerts on unknown issues like latency from Apica's side."
"Apica cannot perform endurance or scale-up tests independently."
"Learning the tool has always been a little difficult from a scripting perspective because the framework is proprietary and unique. Once we became used to what it does and how to perform it, then it became easier for my team and me. I would like to see some of the testing steps be part of a more well-known language, like Java or Python. That would be a big improvement."
"We have been focused on reducing polling times for synthetic checks. We have gone from 10 minutes down to five minutes for a pretty broad swath, but there is some appetite to reduce that further, which could be an improvement."
"The reporting part that we use for our executives needs a bit more customization capabilities. Right now, you can use only the three main templates for reporting. We would like to be able to customize them."
"When it comes to the way the internal agent is installed, because you can install an application on a server, I would love to see the application Docker-ized. If you could install internal agents using Docker or using containers, it would be easier for us to manage them and spin up internal agents."
"It is difficult to create a script using ZebraTester."
"The tool does not provide automatic correlation features."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"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."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
"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."
"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."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"I would be very interested in having transaction traceability included in the product, to give us a better view of what is really going wrong in a particular method and action."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"License management is another area that Apica could do better. We have already had these conversations with our account teams. This is something that they are looking at largely improving in upcoming releases. I believe that this is already on their roadmap."
"The solution's pricing is not cheap, but it is in the midrange."
"The tool is completely free and open source. I've been using it for about two and a half years and installed it on both my personal and client machines without needing a license. All features are available for use without any hidden fees."
"The product is less expensive compared to LoadRunner."
"The pricing and licensing are very reasonable. At the end of the day, you are using their technology/software and getting X amount of checks for a very decent value. As for discounts, they try to meet your budgets as much as they can. For example, if you need 100 checks and you have X amount of budget for it, then they will try and get down to that price. Costing-wise, it is a reasonably cost product. They will always try and come down to your price if you need them to come down to it by knocking off certain areas."
"Another main difference between Apica and the other products was the cost. We really thought that the balance in Apica between the features and costs was the best among all the products on which we did a PoC."
"I am sure that Apica's price will be lower than LoadRunner."
"The pricing is fair. It is neither too cheap nor too expensive."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Depending on your requirements, there are two licensing models available. A simple point model, or an endpoint model."
"I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten on a scale where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"You have to pay for their "solution templates". Other tools do not charge you for knowledge-based monitoring bundles."
"Licensing is a little steep."
"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.
860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
10%
Media Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Financial Services Firm
32%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Apica Synthetic?
The GUI is powerful and doesn't require scripting or regular expressions. It has a vast finder for correlation, which is easier than other tools like JMeter and LoadRunner. It's also easy to integr...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apica Synthetic?
I know Apica is an expensive solution, but it is worth the money for the service it provides.
What needs improvement with Apica Synthetic?
Apica cannot perform endurance or scale-up tests independently. It requires other tools like ALM. When editing scripts, only one can be accessed at a time, risking changes affecting other folders. ...
What do you like most about Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?
The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring.
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?
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...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Apica LoadTest, Apica Synthetic
Micro Focus SiteScope, HPE SiteScope, SiteScope
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

HBO, JPMC, Morgan Stanley, Xander, EA Sports, Volvo
Vodafone Ireland, Kuveyt Turk Participation Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Apica vs. OpenText SiteScope and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.