We performed a comparison between AppDynamics and OpenText Real User Monitoring based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of the solution is the fact that it is very easy to use, making it easy to implement...It is a very stable solution."
"Transition tracing is the most valuable is pretty easy and useful, but the user experience piece is also good."
"The most valuable features of AppDynamics is the scalability and monitoring."
"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 provides us with detailed information about the performance of the underlying infrastructure, including servers, databases, and external services."
"What I like best about AppDynamics is that it's functional, particularly in APM in Java and .NET."
"The most valuable feature of AppDynamics is Proactive Monitoring and Alerting."
"The most valuable feature of AppDynamics is its ability to track the transactions between different applications."
"Real User Monitor has improved our productivity."
"Very easy to implement."
"If it can be able to intelligently provide all the things we need to look at, from a data point of view, that would be very useful."
"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."
"AppDynamics's agent management could be improved."
"AppDynamics could benefit from greater integration with emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning."
"AppDynamics lacks integration with cloud technology. It probably isn't a good fit for emerging enterprises because it's an on-premise solution, and many newer companies are moving to the cloud. AppDynamics' on-premise technology works reasonably well, but it doesn't have cloud features."
"The AppDynamics installation process needs to be more straightforward. Deploying the product is also tricky."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"The documentation and training material have room for improvement."
"Some issues with login errors."
"Real User Monitor needs to cover more protocols to provide more in-depth information. It could also be better at monitoring voice-related traffic. There is currently no visibility in that channel."
More OpenText Real User Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
AppDynamics is ranked 5th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 26 reviews while OpenText Real User Monitoring is ranked 47th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 2 reviews. AppDynamics is rated 7.8, while OpenText Real User Monitoring is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of AppDynamics writes "Good tracing capabilities and helpful technical support but needs better analytics". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Real User Monitoring writes "The reports and metrics we collect help us to improve our services". AppDynamics is most compared with Dynatrace, Elastic Observability, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic, whereas OpenText Real User Monitoring is most compared with Dynatrace, Honeycomb.io, VMware Tanzu Observability by Wavefront, Datadog and Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver). See our AppDynamics vs. OpenText Real User Monitoring 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.