We performed a comparison between AppDynamics and OpenText Business Process Monitoring 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."AppDynamics' most valuable features are the response time of the business transaction modules, the ability to monitor multiple services, and testing and developing environments."
"Being able to install it on-prem and monitor our on-prem infrastructure is important for us... Most of our infrastructure is on-prem. We have highly scalable systems and AppDynamics will help us monitor our load on-prem. Our systems range from simple to the most complex and it gives us the visibility across transactions, in one dashboard."
"AppDynamics has been stable."
"The features that I like best are the dashboard and Business Journey."
"What I like best about AppDynamics is that it's functional, particularly in APM in Java and .NET."
"AppDynamics makes it much easier for us to detect problems or issues before they become problems. We have alerting on all of our business transactions."
"We're a large organization, so we appreciate AppDynamics' wide coverage. It may not work in all areas, but it has broad coverage. We can use the same dataset for different use case aspects. That is the beauty of AppDynamics. You can coordinate APM, EUM, and infrastructure through one dataset."
"AppDynamics' best feature is automation - for example, when I add a note, it can understand the data automatically."
"Automates processes and allows reports and statistics to improve the speed at which changes and assets are managed."
"The stability has been very good over the years."
"AppDynamics should improve its ability to track all the transactions."
"If AppDynamics could do a one-agent function with their actual monitoring effectiveness, it will be the greatest tool."
"Sometimes, it is hard to navigate through and find if something is wrong or figure out where an error stemmed from."
"I would like to see more artificial intelligence and machine learning brought in to monitor the statement and payment sum issues we have."
"SQL statement monitoring"
"AppDynamics scaled well up to around 3,000 agents. The performance deteriorated after that, while Dynatrace could support more than 10,000 agents. We were surprised that AppDynamics' scalability is not so good."
"The dashboard can be better. Also, the automated reports could be improved."
"Their support should be improved. Clusters and monitoring can also be improved."
"The solution should offer better integration with other tools from a service management perspective."
"Product documentation is lacking, and sometimes, incorrect. Having better documentation will allow business analysts and data center personnel to rely on the Micro Focus help desk less."
AppDynamics is ranked 5th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 153 reviews while OpenText Business Process Monitoring is ranked 57th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability. AppDynamics is rated 8.2, while OpenText Business Process Monitoring is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AppDynamics writes "Very good real-time monitoring capabilities, deep problem diagnosis, and transaction mapping". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Business Process Monitoring writes "Stable with good performance visibility but is a discontinued product". AppDynamics is most compared with Dynatrace, Elastic Observability, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic, whereas OpenText Business Process Monitoring is most compared with Dynatrace and Datadog.
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.
