We performed a comparison between Aternity AppInternals [EOL] and OpenText SiteScope 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."As an Administrator, before we bought this AppInternals, I didn't have visibility on why items were slow or why an application was not running. This gives us the ability to see what's going on. The application is load balancing. We can now see if its own server has issues or just one specific server has issues."
"The product is very useful to find problems in middleware for the application servers, especially agent instrumentation and management is user friendly."
"We just control on the backend of AppInternals what we want to instrument and what we don't want to instrument."
"Browsermetrix, which is real-user monitoring via JS injection and linked back to TTW via cookie. It allows us to see the experience of every user hitting our sites and analyze performance by region, browser, etc."
"I like it that one can match IPs with the application name."
"Synthetic transactions, WMI and SNMP query capability."
"Transaction Tracing is the most useful. Being able to have the transaction stitched together so we can see where the problem is has proven invaluable."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is the integration with their other systems. It's easy to understand and it points out the relevant problems in the enterprise."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"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."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"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."
"There's no agent you need installed on the servers. In our environment, we have some servers out of our control so we cannot manage them. We use SiteScope to monitor the availability, the resources on the servers, etc. This allows us to do this job without installing agents so there's no need to take care of anything on the server."
"We have put in a request as an enhancement that we would like to search for items. If we're searching for a URL and we want to know was it a get or was it a post."
"Support for PHP, DB and other applications need to be supported."
"We'd like to be able to find out performance problems on application class and methods."
"They should find a way for report generation from TTW to run quicker."
"It would be great if the solution could offer fixed bundles and more features."
"The admin dashboard could be easier as it takes a little bit of time to get used to it."
"I would like for it to have automated updates, the way the product updates itself should be all automated, as opposed to what it is now."
"The technical support is not very good and should be improved."
"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."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"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."
"Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring."
"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."
"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."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
Earn 20 points
Aternity AppInternals [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Aternity AppInternals [EOL] is rated 8.2, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Aternity AppInternals [EOL] writes "We use it to see the experience of users hitting our sites and analyze performance by region, browser, etc". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText SiteScope writes "Doesn't require much custom coding and can run on different platforms, but the types of scripting files you can execute on it are limited". Aternity AppInternals [EOL] is most compared with IDERA Precise, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, SCOM, AppDynamics, Prometheus and BMC TrueSight Operations Management.
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.
