We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and OpenText SiteScope 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 solution works well overall. It's easy to implement and simple to use."
"The solution integrates well with the Microsoft platform."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the universality of their functionalities in all Azure services, including, software solutions."
"Technical support is helpful."
"It is a move-in powerful feature compared to other market-leading tools."
"The upside to the solution is if you are working in a Microsoft or Azure environment, it makes things easier."
"For me, the best feature is the log analysis with Azure Monitor's Log Analytics. Without being able to analyze the logs of all the activities that affect the performance of a machine, your monitoring effectiveness will be severely limited."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"The tool has capabilities other than managing web-based applications, like URL Monitor and EPI Script. It is also easy to use the tool."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"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."
"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."
"The Monitor Templates functionality allowed us to spin up monitoring with .csv files pretty easily."
"n comparison to New Relic, which I've used before, it's a bit more complicated. It's not as easy to use. It also took some time to get it working. The implementation needs to be simpler."
"They need to work with other cloud providers - not just Azure."
"The solution should have cross-connection or cross-communication between tech partners."
"The monitoring of Kubernetes clusters needs improvement to be on par with competitors."
"It's really complex to retrieve or query the logs in Azure Monitor."
"The solution needs better monitoring. It requires better log controls."
"We cannot use AI services with the solution."
"Azure Monitor could improve network performance monitoring and make it more advanced."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"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."
"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."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"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."
"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."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "A powerful Kusto query language but the alerting mechanism needs improvement". 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". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Prometheus, Sentry and Grafana, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, SCOM, AppDynamics, Prometheus and New Relic. See our Azure Monitor 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.