Avada Software Infrared360 vs OpenText SiteScope comparison

Avada Software and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category. Avada Software is ranked #73, while OpenText is ranked #19 with an average rating of 8.8. Avada Software holds a 0.1% mindshare in APM, compared to OpenText’s 0.6% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Avada Software users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 92% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Avada Software Infrared360

Read 13 Avada Software Infrared360 reviews

631 Views
284 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText SiteScope

Read 28 OpenText SiteScope reviews

1,554 Views
1,336 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

Avada Software Infrared360

OpenText SiteScope

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

OpenText SiteScope and Avada Software Infrared360 are two monitoring solutions for IT infrastructure, each offering unique capabilities. Based on user reviews, Avada Software Infrared360 appears to have the upper hand due to its comprehensive features and perceived value despite a higher price point.

What features are offered by OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Avada Software Infrared360?

OpenText SiteScope offers robust monitoring capabilities, customizable alerts, and strong customer support. Avada Software Infrared360 provides detailed dashboards, integration features, and a diverse feature set valued for its perceived return on investment.

What areas of improvement can be found in OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Avada Software Infrared360?

OpenText SiteScope users suggest enhancing reporting capabilities, reducing false positives, and improving data presentation. Users of Infrared360 note the need for a more intuitive configuration process, better documentation, and smoother setup procedures.

How is the ease of deployment and customer service of OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Avada Software Infrared360?

OpenText SiteScope users report a straightforward deployment process and commendable customer service. Infrared360 users experience a slightly more complex deployment but generally encounter better response times and support quality.

What setup costs and ROI can be seen with OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Avada Software Infrared360?

OpenText SiteScope's pricing is seen as competitive with a good return on investment due to predictability and lower setup costs. Infrared360 presents a higher initial cost, but users feel justified by the advanced features and overall performance.

To learn more, read our detailed Avada Software Infrared360 vs. OpenText SiteScope Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Avada Software Infrared360 vs. OpenText SiteScope

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,384 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

Avada Software Infrared360

Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

73rd

Average Rating

8.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Business Activity Monitoring (4th), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (12th), Server Monitoring (43rd)

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 August 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Avada Software Infrared360 is 0.1%, up from 0.1% 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

Walter Kuhn

ICT Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

Role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems

* We now have the possibility of getting a central perspective on all tenants. * We have defined access roles for developers. Therefore, they can 'read in' their queues on the development and testing stages. With special roles, they may also write. This improves our development and testing cycle. * For operative systems, we have restricted the access. Still, selected people can react if something is happening in the various BOQs.

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

"We have easily created use case testing harnesses for specific flows that incorporate various message types."

"It's what we use for monitoring our MQ system, so the features that they provide are just really, really good."

"It allows non-technical users to inspect their individual components within the total infrastructure without disturbing other components and without bothering the technical teams."

"It has role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems."

"Monitoring that ties into our incident management system"

"The administration piece makes it very easy to do MQ administration. It gives us a lot more flexibility and capabilities."

"The URL monitoring is excellent."

"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."

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

"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 integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."

"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."

"Instead of executing jobs multiple times, I can configure it once, schedule, and apply it on multiple servers in sequence. It allows me to create scripts and automate several processes, making tasks simpler and more efficient."

"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."

More OpenText SiteScope pros

Cons

"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic. The competing products have similar problems."

"We desire a dashboard that could accumulate BOQ lengths per tenant on one screen for all tenants."

"Some of the graphics in the interface could be improved. It's pretty basic. Some interfaces are not up to what you're used to seeing on other, more Windows-like tools."

"The UI can be cumbersome - but we are still using the Viper interface and we have not had the time to check out the Alloy interface which is supposed to be much improved."

"We are still working with the FTE/MFT subscription monitoring and reporting functionality. That is an area in which we would like to see further development taking place."

"One area where they could improve is with their documentation. Some sections are not up to date with new release information and providing additional samples in some areas would be very helpful."

"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."

"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."

"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."

"The interface of OpenText SiteScope needs improvement. It has a Java-based interface, which is slow and could be simplified for better usability."

"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."

"While working with OpenText, I noticed sometimes teams refuse intervention due to compliance issues."

"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."

"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 OpenText SiteScope cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our internal budget calculation model incorporates the pricing per endpoint for any new projects. However, as our footprint for distributed queue managers shrinks as part of our shared middleware hub deployment, the initial licensing and support costs have been reduced over the last five years."

"Start small, then increase licensing later as per your demand."

"Avada Software's licensing metric is very good because the license fees are based on the number of connections (which have not increased for us very much over the years) rather than the CPU processing power (which increases significantly whenever our hardware is upgraded) or the number of users (which has increased for us a lot since our original purchase)."

"Because the licensing is at the QMGR level, you need to have at least a small cushion of licenses for occasional enterprise needs."

"I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten on a scale where one is cheap and ten is expensive."

"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."

"Licensing is a little steep."

"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."

"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."

"SiteScope licensing can be node based-or monitor-based. I would recommend for node-based licensing."

"Depending on your requirements, there are two licensing models available. A simple point model, or an endpoint model."

"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

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

35%

Manufacturing Company

Printing Company

Performing Arts

Financial Services Firm

25%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Computer Software Company

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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

IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) vs Avada Software Infrared360

Compared 33% of the time

IBM MQ vs Avada Software Infrared360

Compared 32% of the time

Dynatrace vs Avada Software Infrared360

Compared 21% of the time

Splunk AppDynamics vs Avada Software Infrared360

Compared 14% of the time

More Avada Software Infrared360 Competitors

Dynatrace vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 11% of the time

OmniPeek vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 9% of the time

Grafana vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 9% of the time

OpenText Real User Monitoring vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 8% of the time

AWS Auto Scaling vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText SiteScope Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Avada Software Infrared360

August 2025

Download Avada Software Infrared360 product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText SiteScope

August 2025

Download OpenText SiteScope product report

Also Known As

Infrared360

Micro Focus SiteScope, HPE SiteScope, SiteScope

Overview

Avada Software specializes in Enterprise Middleware solutions. Founded by some pioneers in SOA, MQ and J2EE technology, Avada’s Flagship product, Infrared360, is a holistic & innovative private cloud enabled portal providing self-service administration, monitoring, load testing, auditing & statistical reporting for Enterprise Middleware including IBM’s middleware stack of MQ, IIB (message broker), WAS, and Datapower, as well as other applications servers such as JBoss, TC Server, Weblogic, and other messaging technologies such as Tibco EMS and Kafka*.

Accessed via any web browser on any device, Infrared360 is a single web application, yet scales to 2500+ endpoints without deploying anything (no agents, no scripts) to those endpoints.

Using trusted ‘spaces’ and delegated visibility and control, the portal uniquely provides different business units or even different application users virtual ‘spaces’ in which to work. Within those spaces are only the objects and resources the user has been granted visibility. Role policy dictates permissions on those resources.

It is the ONLY Enterprise Messaging Solution with a built in SOA engine that lets you leverage internal and external services for managing and correcting problems within your middleware messaging environment.

*Kafka coming soon

Avada Software

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

USBank, Southwest Airlines, Visiting Nurse Services of New York, Aon Hewitt, Parker Hannifin, Cantonal Bank of Zurich (ZKB), Hagemeyer NA, and many others

Vodafone Ireland, Kuveyt Turk Participation Bank

Buyer's Guide

Avada Software Infrared360 vs. OpenText SiteScope

July 2025

Free Report: Avada Software Infrared360 vs. OpenText SiteScope

Find out what your peers are saying about Avada Software Infrared360 vs. OpenText SiteScope and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Avada Software Infrared360 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.