Apica vs OpenText SiteScope comparison

Apica and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category. Apica is ranked #16 with an average rating of 7.7, while OpenText is ranked #19 with an average rating of 9.0. Apica holds a 0.5% mindshare in APM, compared to OpenText’s 0.6% mindshare. Additionally, 81% of Apica users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 92% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Apica

Read 11 Apica reviews

1,227 Views
834 Comparison Views

81% willing to recommend

OpenText SiteScope

Read 28 OpenText SiteScope reviews

1,582 Views
1,345 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

Apica

OpenText SiteScope

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

OpenText SiteScope and Apica are both robust IT monitoring solutions tailored for enterprise-level environments. Apica seems to have the upper hand in terms of overall features and ease of use, while OpenText SiteScope is praised for its customization options and integration capabilities.

What features are offered by OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Apica?

OpenText SiteScope offers scalability, flexibility, and extensive monitoring templates. It also integrates well with other Micro Focus tools. Apica provides comprehensive end-to-end monitoring capabilities, rich real-time dashboards, and detailed synthetic monitoring. It stands out with its advanced analytics and user-friendly experience.

What areas of improvement can be found in OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Apica?

OpenText SiteScope could improve by modernizing its interface and enhancing performance metrics granularity. Users also suggest refining its user interface. Apica could benefit from better documentation and streamlining some configuration processes. Users also recommend further usability enhancements.

How is the ease of deployment and customer service of OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Apica?

OpenText SiteScope users report a more complex deployment process but robust customer support. Apica users find the deployment relatively straightforward. They also commend the proactive customer service. Apica generally has an advantage in deployment simplicity, while both have strong customer service acknowledgment.

What setup costs and ROI can be seen with OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Apica?

OpenText SiteScope is often seen as having higher initial setup costs, delivering strong ROI through deep integration and broad functionality. Apica provides solid ROI, with users noting it is worth the investment due to its comprehensive features despite sometimes higher pricing. Apica seems favorable in balancing cost with the value delivered, while OpenText SiteScope is noted for long-term returns post-setup investment.

To learn more, read our detailed Apica vs. OpenText SiteScope Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Apica vs. OpenText SiteScope

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 869,771 peers since 2012

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

16th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Log Management (18th), IT Operations Analytics (6th), Observability Pipeline Software (2nd)

OpenText SiteScope

Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

19th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Apica is 0.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText SiteScope is 0.6%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Apica	0.5%
OpenText SiteScope	0.6%
Other	98.9%

Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

Featured Reviews

Punith H K

Senior Systems Engineer at Infosys

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.

Read full review

Gyanesh Rahatekar

Back office at Reliance Industries Ltd

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"You can tell from the operational space of people who are using and consuming this data that they are more integrated. It is not dependent on one team anymore. It saves a lot of time by capturing and pinpointing the exact problem that is happening quickly. We have moved from getting escalations manually to getting escalations synthetically."

"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."

"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."

"It is easy to set up and configure."

"Apica allows me to record APIs easily and enhances scripts through options like auto-correlation, enabling me to access dynamic fields."

"What I like the most is that Apica can simulate different browsers and different versions of desktop or mobile browsers."

"The solution’s real-time monitoring features have had a huge impact on our service delivery."

"It helps with releases because we monitor them in staging. We can tell if something is critically wrong before it gets into production, e.g., if it was load related or function related and also what was different in the dev stage. It then alerts us straightaway inside of our production monitors once it has been released. Therefore, it has improved how we run our systems since we monitor multiple environments."

More Apica pros

"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."

"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."

"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."

"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."

"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."

"The URL monitoring is excellent."

"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."

"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."

More OpenText SiteScope pros

Cons

"It is difficult to create a script using ZebraTester."

"The having to install an application on your desktop to utilize something like ZebraTester is a little cumbersome. It would be nice to see that become a web-based application. Having the documentation a little more accessible, and easier to digest by people who are just learning how to use the framework, especially when it comes to more complex or more edge-based cases would be really helpful to have."

"If you are adding any input file, the tool fails to capture the path."

"Apica is costly, and there's no way to test mobile applications through Apica."

"I have noticed that the tool isn't widely recognized outside our organization. Also, there aren't any tutorials or dedicated resources for this tool, making it challenging for newcomers to learn. It would be beneficial if someone experienced with it could provide guidance."

"The accuracy of alerts can be improved a little bit. Right now, it's pretty good in terms of alerting pretty quickly about failures or changes in response times. However, what we have seen happen is the number of alerts that we are getting is very frequent, and we would like to tone down the number of alerts. That's the only trouble we have. Apica could tone down those settings because there is no option for us to tone it down to a level that would reduce the alerts to a minimum. As a platform, it does send us good alerts, but it could be improved a bit."

"The initial screen on their dashboard could have a bit more data, but this is a small thing. It could have more data, so we do not need to drill down to a screen behind that initial information. I would like them to get a little better on the user interfaces that we need to go into."

"Apica was a relatively new tool when I started using it. Although Apica had good documentation, it still felt less developed or advanced than a tool like LoadRunner."

More Apica cons

"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."

"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."

"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."

"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."

"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."

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

"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."

"They should provide more templates for new vendor devices."

More OpenText SiteScope cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"The pricing is fair. It is neither too cheap nor too expensive."

"The level of alerting accuracy has saved us time and money in operational costs. Overall, it has automated a lot of the manual efforts which have been more complex with some of our other scripting tools or monitors. So, it brings things together by doing things faster and saves us money."

"Apica is pretty cost-effective if you buy both solutions together: Synthetic and LoadTest. If you are going for one solution, the cost is on par with any tool in the market."

"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."

"I know Apica is an expensive solution, but it is worth the money for the service it provides."

"The pricing is very reasonable, but it is not cheap."

"The solution's pricing is not cheap, but it is in the midrange."

More Apica pricing and cost advice

"Licensing is a little steep."

"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."

"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 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."

"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."

"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."

More OpenText SiteScope pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

869,771 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

24%

Media Company

11%

Insurance Company

Retailer

Financial Services Firm

22%

Manufacturing Company

17%

Computer Software Company

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	2
Large Enterprise	17

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	8
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	20

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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. ...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?

The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?

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 migra...

See all answers

Comparisons

Dynatrace vs Apica

Compared 25% of the time

Cribl vs Apica

Compared 25% of the time

Splunk Enterprise Security vs Apica

Compared 14% of the time

Datadog vs Apica

Compared 14% of the time

Grafana vs Apica

Compared 13% of the time

More Apica Competitors

Dynatrace vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 24% of the time

OpenText Real User Monitoring vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 16% of the time

Grafana vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 15% of the time

ManageEngine Applications Manager vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 9% of the time

Datadog vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 9% of the time

More OpenText SiteScope Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Apica

October 2025

Download Apica product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText SiteScope

September 2025

Download OpenText SiteScope product report

Also Known As

Apica LoadTest, Apica Synthetic

Micro Focus SiteScope, HPE SiteScope, SiteScope

Overview

Apica leads in observability cost optimization, empowering IT teams to manage telemetry data economics efficiently. It supports various data types, reducing costs by 40% with flexible deployment options and eliminating tool sprawl through modular solutions.

Apica Ascent optimizes observability costs across metrics, logs, traces, and events and provides adaptability beyond proprietary formats. Its patented InstaStore™ technology ensures maximum storage efficiency and advanced root cause analysis. Organizations leverage Apica for comprehensive control over observability investments, reducing runaway costs. With solutions for mitigating high-cardinality data challenges, Apica supports any data lake preference and offers cloud or on-premises deployments. Its modular solutions eliminate unnecessary tool redundancies, enhancing economic efficiency in telemetry data management.

What features define Apica's capabilities?

Global Presence: Extensive points of presence worldwide
Advanced Alerting: Accurate system notifications
Robust Scripting: Supports multiple protocols easily
Flexible Integration: Effortless system connections
Environment Simulation: Adapts various test scenarios globally

Which benefits should users expect from Apica?

Cost Efficiency: Reduces observability costs by 40%
Data Flexibility: Supports any data source
Modular Approach: Eliminates tool redundancies
Advanced Analysis: Enhanced root cause capabilities
Deployment Variety: Cloud and on-premises options available

Apica addresses industry needs in monitoring and testing applications, enhancing user experience across sectors. It is instrumental in synthetic checks, load testing, API monitoring, and validating functionalities for stability in gaming, finance, eCommerce, and banking platforms. Apica's versatility supports both on-premises and cloud environments, ensuring accurate insights into service availability and network performance.

Apica

OpenText SiteScope is an agentless monitoring program that tracks the availability and performance of distributed IT infrastructures such as servers, network devices and services, applications and application components, virtualization software, operating systems, and other IT enterprise components.

OpenText SiteScope is an autonomous hybrid IT monitoring system that can monitor more than 100 different types of IT components in real time, thanks to a lightweight and highly customizable remote access architecture.

With OpenText SiteScope, IT teams can get the data they need to keep on top of problems and eliminate bottlenecks before they become major concerns.

OpenText SiteScope can reduce total cost of ownership (TCO) by utilizing agentless technology, which eliminates the need to install and monitor agents on each box. Manual activities can be automated, and teams can save time and effort by using pre-packaged solution templates.

OpenText SiteScope Features

OpenText SiteScope has many valuable key features. Some of the most useful ones include:

Broad functionality built on expertise: OpenText SiteScope's architecture is scalable and supports a broad range of functions, including data collecting, alerting, event management, and reporting. Data is collected via remote access, which eliminates the need for agents to be deployed and maintained on monitored nodes. OpenText SiteScope connects to systems as a remote user via the central server, which supports JMX, SNMP, HTTP, SSH, NetBIOS, and WMI.

Monitors legacy and modern environments: OpenText SiteScope comes with more than 100 built-in monitors that track things like utilization, response time, use, and resource availability.
- Cloud: You can monitor virtual servers and applications on Amazon Web Services (AWS). AWS-hosted applications can provide data to Amazon CloudWatch, which can be used for auto-scaling, reporting, and alerting.
- Virtualization: OpenText SiteScope supports VMware, Microsoft, Citrix, and Oracle/Sun virtualization technologies. Monitor Docker clusters, nodes, containers, and workloads.

Flexibility with configuration: By adding or deleting specific monitors, you can adapt to dynamic changes in data center configuration.

Templates for solutions: The template database is based on best practices for monitoring complex application settings with the least amount of time and effort. The templates include built-in domain experience of specialized monitors, default metrics and thresholds, proactive testing, and best practices for a given application or monitoring component.

Notifications, alerts, and reports: Email, SNMP traps, HTTP post, and database alerts are all supported. Administrators receive alerts based on defined thresholds and schedules.

Flexibility in user management: Using LDAP or an internal management solution, define group-level permissions, construct user roles, and assign security groups depending on role. Extensive WS (Web Service)-based API that automates numerous management situations without the need for the SiteScope UI.

Integrations with SiteScope: OpenText SiteScope not only offers a number of benefits on its own, but it can also be linked with a number of OpenText and third-party solutions, giving teams the ability to properly integrate their IT operations center.

OpenText

Sample Customers

HBO, JPMC, Morgan Stanley, Xander, EA Sports, Volvo

Vodafone Ireland, Kuveyt Turk Participation Bank

Buyer's Guide

Apica vs. OpenText SiteScope

September 2025

Free Report: Apica vs. OpenText SiteScope

Find out what your peers are saying about Apica vs. OpenText SiteScope and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

869,771 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Apica vs. OpenText SiteScope 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.