Azure Monitor vs OpenText SiteScope comparison

Microsoft and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category. Microsoft is ranked #5 with an average rating of 7.8, while OpenText is ranked #31 with an average rating of 8.5. Microsoft holds a 6.7% mindshare in APM, compared to OpenText’s 0.5% mindshare. Additionally, 90% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 92% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Azure Monitor

Read 55 Azure Monitor reviews

13,217 Views
8,405 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

OpenText SiteScope

Read 27 OpenText SiteScope reviews

1,474 Views
632 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

Azure Monitor

OpenText SiteScope

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

OpenText SiteScope and Azure Monitor are both leading IT monitoring tools. Azure Monitor appears to have the upper hand due to its comprehensive feature set, making it a more attractive option for many users.

What features are offered by OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Azure Monitor?

User reviews highlight OpenText SiteScope's flexible monitoring capabilities and comprehensive reporting features. Azure Monitor, on the other hand, is commended for its advanced analytics and seamless integration with Azure services. Users generally feel Azure Monitor's features provide greater overall value.

What areas of improvement can be found in OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Azure Monitor?

Reviews for OpenText SiteScope suggest a need for a more intuitive setup process and better integration with third-party tools. Azure Monitor users point out improvements could be made in its alerting system and a clearer troubleshooting guide. Azure Monitor users are more satisfied with fewer significant improvement areas noted.

How is the ease of deployment and customer service of OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Azure Monitor?

OpenText SiteScope has mixed reviews on deployment complexity, with some users finding it cumbersome. Azure Monitor is commonly praised for its straightforward deployment process. Regarding customer service, OpenText SiteScope's support is considered adequate, while Azure Monitor has responsive and helpful support.

What setup costs and ROI can be seen with OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Azure Monitor?

OpenText SiteScope users mention that while setup costs can be high, the return on investment justifies it. Azure Monitor is noted for its pay-as-you-go pricing model, reducing the initial financial burden, with users feeling it offers excellent ROI through its robust feature offerings and scalability.

To learn more, read our detailed Azure Monitor vs. OpenText SiteScope Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Azure Monitor vs. OpenText SiteScope

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 856,873 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

Azure Monitor

Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

5th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Cloud Monitoring Software (3rd)

OpenText SiteScope

Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

31st

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

8.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Azure Monitor is 6.7%, down from 8.8% 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

Muhammad Usman Khawar

Software Engineer (DevOps/ SRE) at Sensys LLC

Native integration simplifies monitoring but documentation and cost improvements are needed

The ease of access in Azure is significant since it's native to the platform and easy to integrate. It has no maintenance overhead, and users don't have to navigate to another portal to get their desired result. It's the handiness that it has, rather than the features. The interpretation from the logs and injection requires custom runbooks. While it's complex, many services provide native insights and workbooks. It does the basic job quite efficiently. They added new kinds of metrics with more integrations to send out metrics. They have even added support for third-party tools that can be integrated. Azure Monitor is working on improvements and becoming more mature. Azure Monitor is stable and scalable. Azure Monitor is evolving with new workbooks and dashboards.

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

"What I like about Azure Monitor is that it performs well."

"It is a robust, stable product."

"I use the solution to monitor the infrastructure and applications."

"Azure Monitor is a very easy-to-use product in the cloud environment."

"I can conclude reports for the monthly, weekly, and peak time of the resources."

"It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale."

"We like this searchability and availability of the data."

"Among the valuable features of this solution, Application Insights stands out as one of the most significant. It provides insights into application performance and helps identify issues and bottlenecks."

More Azure Monitor pros

"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."

"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."

"The URL monitoring is excellent."

"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."

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

"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."

"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."

"I find OpenText SiteScope itself to be uncomplicated and deserving of a ten out of ten due to its simplicity."

More OpenText SiteScope pros

Cons

"I believe Azure Monitor is already a top-notch solution with excellent functionality and there is not much I would suggest for improvement. However, there is one limitation that certain features require payment, even for testing purposes, which can be a challenge."

"The biggest one is probably just the user interface. There could be more advanced logging at the database level. They can also improve their query builder to allow you to search for things better, but I last used it about a year ago. They might have already changed a ton of things in the newer versions."

"The scalability could be improved as there are some limitations."

"The process of implementation needs to be easier."

"The solution needs better monitoring. It requires better log controls."

"The length of latency is terrible and needs to be improved."

"Integration with third-party tools from other vendors than Azure is more time-consuming"

"They need to work on a more hybrid deployment that will allow us to monitor local on-premise deployments and connect to different systems. I would like to see more integration."

More Azure Monitor cons

"Direct integration with an SMS gateway for sending critical alerts to the support SME. This will help customer investing in third party middleware solutions for SMS."

"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."

"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."

"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."

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

"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."

More OpenText SiteScope cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product offers a pay-as-you-go model to users. The charges are to be paid according to the usage of the product."

"Customers of Azure Monitor must pay an amount that depends largely on how many services they need to integrate and the storage space required in terms of logs, etc. If they only have a few small services to monitor, the price won't be too high, but on the opposite side of the spectrum, it can certainly get pricey."

"The solution’s pricing depends on how much logs it collects."

"The solution is expensive, but it is worth the price."

"The price of the solution is reasonable."

"It is a pay-as-you-go model. I find it very cost-effective."

"The tool's pricing is very good. I could say that Microsoft offers different cost models, which are listed on the product's website."

"The solution is a pay-as-you-go consumption service and is the least expensive in the market."

More Azure Monitor pricing and cost advice

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

"Licensing is a little steep."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

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

856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

33%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

11%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

How does Splunk compare with Azure Monitor?

Splunk handles a high amount of data very well. We use Splunk to capture information and as an aggregator for monitoring information from different sources. Splunk is very good at alerting us if we...

See all answers

What do you like most about Azure Monitor?

Azure Monitor is a very easy-to-use product in the cloud environment.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Azure Monitor?

The primary challenge is the documentation. The major challenge that remains is the costing factor for the logs ingestion. The cost skyrockets once you start using it, and there are complaints that...

See all answers

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

See all answers

Comparisons

Datadog vs Azure Monitor

Compared 22% of the time

Sentry vs Azure Monitor

Compared 14% of the time

Dynatrace vs Azure Monitor

Compared 13% of the time

Grafana vs Azure Monitor

Compared 11% of the time

New Relic vs Azure Monitor

Compared 6% of the time

More Azure Monitor Competitors

Dynatrace vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 13% of the time

Splunk AppDynamics vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 11% of the time

OmniPeek vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 11% of the time

Grafana vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 11% of the time

Prometheus Group vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 9% of the time

More OpenText SiteScope Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Azure Monitor

June 2025

Download Azure Monitor product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText SiteScope

March 2025

Download OpenText SiteScope product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus SiteScope, HPE SiteScope, SiteScope

Overview

Azure Monitor is a comprehensive monitoring solution offered by Microsoft Azure. It provides a centralized platform for monitoring the performance and health of various Azure resources, applications, and infrastructure.

With Azure Monitor, users can gain insights into the availability, performance, and usage of their applications and infrastructure. The key features of Azure Monitor include metrics, logs, alerts, and dashboards. Metrics allow users to collect and analyze performance data from various Azure resources, such as virtual machines, databases, and storage accounts.

Logs enable users to collect and analyze log data from different sources, including Azure resources, applications, and operating systems. Azure Monitor also provides a robust alerting mechanism that allows users to set up alerts based on specific conditions or thresholds. These alerts can be configured to notify users via email, SMS, or other notification channels. Additionally, Azure Monitor offers customizable dashboards that allow users to visualize and analyze their monitoring data in a personalized and intuitive manner.

Azure Monitor integrates seamlessly with other Azure services, such as Azure Automation and Azure Logic Apps, enabling users to automate actions based on monitoring data. It also supports integration with third-party monitoring tools and services, providing flexibility and extensibility.

Overall, Azure Monitor is a powerful and versatile monitoring solution that helps users gain deep insights into the performance and health of their Azure resources and applications. It offers a wide range of features and integrations, making it a comprehensive solution for monitoring and managing Azure environments.

Microsoft

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

Rackspace, First Gas, Allscripts, ABB Group

Vodafone Ireland, Kuveyt Turk Participation Bank

Buyer's Guide

Azure Monitor vs. OpenText SiteScope

June 2025

Free Report: Azure Monitor vs. OpenText SiteScope

Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Monitor vs. OpenText SiteScope and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.