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."Provides an overview and high-level information."
"The solution's most valuable features are its ability to focus on delivery and maximizing the performance of applications and services."
"Azure Monitor gives us the observability to check everything that we have in the cloud."
"The solution is quite stable."
"The solution very easily integrates with Azure services and in one click you can monitor your resource."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Azure Monitor is very stable."
"One of the most useful aspects of this solution is the out-of-the-box functionality on all areas, especially on Application Insights, zero instrumentation, and artificial intelligence for event correlation."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."
"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."
"The Monitor Templates functionality allowed us to spin up monitoring with .csv files pretty easily."
"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."
"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."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"I would like more transparency when we use the solution with another environment, like on-premises, or on another cloud environment, like AWS or GCP."
"The default interface should be improved."
"If it is configured incorrectly, you can end up with a huge bill."
"It's really complex to retrieve or query the logs in Azure Monitor."
"Enhancing and reaching a level of detail that facilitates pinpointing and addressing issues at such a refined level within the application and database components would be helpful."
"In terms of pricing, Azure Monitor's billing based on data size can sometimes lead to increased costs, especially when developers need to purge data frequently. While there are mechanisms in place to track and manage this, there is room for improvement in terms of optimizing data pausing and related processes. Enhancements in this area could help mitigate potential billing concerns and provide a more seamless experience for users."
"Setting up this solution is complex. It's also missing the functionality of assigning alerts."
"Azure Monitor's integration with applications could be improved."
"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."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
"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."
"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."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
"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."
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.
