Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Avantra vs OpenText SiteScope comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

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

Avantra
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
58th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
SAP Service Providers (15th), Server Monitoring (32nd), IT Infrastructure Monitoring (62nd)
OpenText SiteScope
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
17th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Avantra is 0.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText SiteScope is 0.7%, 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
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText SiteScope0.7%
Avantra0.6%
Other98.7%
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

Mani Velayudhan - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager, SAP Basis at The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company
Useful automation capabilities, scales well, and simple implementation
We are currently exploring automation options for various areas, and Avantra should consider implementing automation for change request management, an area they have not yet ventured into. While Avantra is currently excelling in monitoring and system refreshes, there is scope for improvement in automating change request management. In addition to primarily focusing on SAP, Avantra currently performs kernel patches which are core SAP patches. However, exploring more into OS patching could be another potential area for Avantra to expand its automation capabilities. Looking ahead to future releases, I would like to see more advanced automation features. As a long-term goal, I am considering the possibility of automating SAP system upgrades. While this would not be an easy feat, advancements in technology may make it feasible in the future. Overall, a key feature I hope to see in future releases is increased automation capabilities.
Gyanesh Rahatekar - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's very easy to manage and use."
"You can customize alerts based on need."
"The most valuable feature of Avantra is automation. The reduction of manual work and having them automated is one of the top reasons why I would use it."
"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 Monitor Templates functionality allowed us to spin up monitoring with .csv files pretty easily."
"The product's readymade templates are perfect. It supports us a lot when we don't have much experience with the product. The templates offers us direction to proceed."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"The biggest benefit I see from OpenText SiteScope is that it is a very professional tool, and it helps me greatly."
"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."
"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."
"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."
 

Cons

"We are currently exploring automation options for various areas, and Avantra should consider implementing automation for change request management, an area they have not yet ventured into. While Avantra is currently excelling in monitoring and system refreshes, there is scope for improvement in automating change request management. In addition to primarily focusing on SAP, Avantra currently performs kernel patches which are core SAP patches. However, exploring more into OS patching could be another potential area for Avantra to expand its automation capabilities."
"The machine-learning is lacking and should be improved."
"The dashboard needs to improve."
"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."
"OpenText SiteScope has some limitations, especially with integration between OpenText SiteScope and Remedy, which must be done through middle software."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
"While working with OpenText, I noticed sometimes teams refuse intervention due to compliance issues."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Licensing is a little steep."
"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."
"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."
"You have to pay for their "solution templates". Other tools do not charge you for knowledge-based monitoring bundles."
"Depending on your requirements, there are two licensing models available. A simple point model, or an endpoint model."
"SiteScope licensing can be node based-or monitor-based. I would recommend for node-based licensing."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
5%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
8%
University
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise21
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?
Regarding areas for improvement, there may be minor issues, but I have not faced any significant issues with OpenText SiteScope because I have a team that uses this product daily. As a monitoring d...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?
OpenText SiteScope has a lot of use cases including monitoring websites, monitoring URLs, monitoring infrastructure resources like CPU, hard disk, and memory usage, and customized monitoring script...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus SiteScope, HPE SiteScope, SiteScope
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Migros, Strauss, Migros, LAM research, Deloitte, Deloitte, Kiewit
Vodafone Ireland, Kuveyt Turk Participation Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Avantra vs. OpenText SiteScope and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.