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

AWS Auto Scaling 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

AWS Auto Scaling
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
15th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText SiteScope
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
21st
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of AWS Auto Scaling is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText SiteScope is 0.5%, 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

Mbula Mboma - PeerSpot reviewer
Boosts deployment efficiency with seamless automatic scaling capabilities
My primary use case for Auto Scaling is mainly to deploy applications at scale Auto Scaling has made the deployment of applications more efficient, allowing us to manage traffic and maintain performance as user counts increase. Auto Scaling is a cool feature that works well and its automatic…
Ahmed Salman - PeerSpot reviewer
Instead of executing jobs multiple times, I can configure it once, schedule, and apply it on multiple servers in sequence
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 allows me to create scripts and automate several processes, making tasks simpler and more efficient. By using templates for systems or databases, I can monitor various needs easily, which saves time and increases productivity.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"AWS Auto Scaling is very good for managing traffic and creating new instances when necessary."
"I would highly recommend Auto Scaling to others because it is a fantastic feature that simplifies scaling processes and makes deployment efficient."
"The various scaling options available, such as step scaling, are particularly useful."
"When a lot of traffic comes into our organization, the product scales our instances based on our environment’s requirements."
"It can scale."
"The good thing about Autoscaling is that it provides the capacity to minimize downtime. So, it gives you the assurance of stability and robustness within your system."
"It is a stable platform."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it scales automatically without manual intervention based on the metrics we provide."
"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."
"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."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"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."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"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."
"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."
 

Cons

"The solution must improve automation."
"It could be cheaper."
"The only area of improvement is the speed at which servers are launched. When cleaning up to six servers at a time, it can take up to 15 to 20 minutes to launch new servers."
"AWS Auto Scaling's documentation could be better."
"The solution is not out-of-the-box and you have to study to use it. It should be more easier to use."
"We can have more auto scaling algorithms implemented in AWS Auto Scaling."
"It is sometimes very critical to deploy on AWS since some servers are already running in the background. There are challenges for employees on how to deploy at a given time."
"It requires a downtime before deploying the Auto Scaling group."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"While working with OpenText, I noticed sometimes teams refuse intervention due to compliance issues."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"We have four or five data centers around North America where we have it deployed into a single or a two-server primary backup type of deployment. All those are made available under a single GUI provided by Micro Focus that allows you to put them all together. A room for improvement would be an appliance or a server that would manage all of our other servers so that I don't have to remember to log on to all different servers and data centers. I could manage them from a single location."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"AWS Auto Scaling's price is high."
"AWS Auto Scaling is a cheap solution."
"The pricing is good. I have not had any customers that have complained about the price."
"The product is expensive."
"AWS Auto Scaling is a pay-per-use and pay-as-you-use service."
"The product has moderate pricing."
"AWS Auto Scaling is an expensive solution."
"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."
"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."
"SiteScope licensing can be node based-or monitor-based. I would recommend for node-based licensing."
"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."
"You have to pay for their "solution templates". Other tools do not charge you for knowledge-based monitoring bundles."
"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."
"Depending on your requirements, there are two licensing models available. A simple point model, or an endpoint model."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
34%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about AWS Auto Scaling?
The tool's most valuable feature is vertical auto-scaling, which is easy to use. However, most companies now prefer horizontal scaling. I set up the health check integration to monitor CPU usage. W...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for AWS Auto Scaling?
The pricing of Auto Scaling is medium range, neither high nor low.
What needs improvement with AWS Auto Scaling?
It is sometimes very critical to deploy on AWS since some servers are already running in the background. There are challenges for employees on how to deploy at a given time. It requires a downtime ...
What do you like most about Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?
The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring.
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?
While working with OpenText, I noticed sometimes teams refuse intervention due to compliance issues. Overcoming control restrictions for different applications could be improved.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

AWS Auto-Scaling
Micro Focus SiteScope, HPE SiteScope, SiteScope
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Expedia, Intuit, Royal Dutch Shell, Brooks Brothers
Vodafone Ireland, Kuveyt Turk Participation Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Auto Scaling vs. OpenText SiteScope and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.