No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

CA App Synthetic Monitor vs Groundcover Observability Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

CA App Synthetic Monitor
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
73rd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Groundcover Observability P...
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
47th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (41st), AI Observability (25th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of CA App Synthetic Monitor is 0.5%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Groundcover Observability Platform is 0.3%. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Groundcover Observability Platform0.3%
CA App Synthetic Monitor0.5%
Other99.2%
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2286675 - PeerSpot reviewer
System Administrator at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
A reliable solution for SSL offloading and to encrypt outside traffic
If you are responsible for monitoring the logs in F5, it isn't very easy. The format is complicated compared to different vendors. For example, Fortinet and Cisco have feasible formats for sending and fetching logs. Suppose I'm monitoring the logs and everything, and when I am retrieving logs from F5, I want to know whether it is regular traffic or any abnormality is happening. The logs itself is not user-friendly. It may not give you a clear way of what's happening. You have to go through different websites and work on it. You have to waste so much time on it.
EO
Software Engineer at FairMoney
Centralized observability has improved transaction monitoring and now reduces errors through faster troubleshooting
Groundcover Observability Platform is already very vast, and improving it requires proper training for even a software developer to be able to use it. A person in tech needs training to navigate the system. The UI is better, but it can be improved to include a more intuitive design that easily explains itself to users so that navigation is simpler. Many features are hidden, and you need someone who is experienced with the platform to direct you on how to view certain information or complete specific tasks and walk you through the process. It would be better if Groundcover focused more on simplifying the user interface and improving human-computer interactions of the dashboard to make it so easy for a new developer or specialist to navigate and get what they need quickly. Querying data from Groundcover is not easy if you do not have specific information. You cannot perform a wildcard search in the text box. If you go to the log and enter an error message, it will not bring any results for you. You must first specify the workload or pods you are looking for, then enter the error. You need to add tags and put in your strings to be able to search for your particular logs or errors. If you just put a wildcard search in the text box, it will not work and will appear as if there are no logs that relate to that search, when in reality the logs exist. Making it easier for developers, users, and specialists using Groundcover to navigate and get what they need without the help of an experienced person walking them through is very important. This improvement is not about functionality but more about making navigation easier.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"From our experience, it really helps managers in measuring application SLAs and viewing historical performance data."
"Each had strengths in one area or another, but CA covered the majority of our needs end-to-end."
"Groundcover Observability Platform scales effectively with our organization's growth as we add new environments and everything works great, and the migration from our old product went very smoothly, allowing us to deprecate it rather quickly."
"Troubleshooting is very fast compared to manual investigation or using the other forms of logging that we used to have, and downtime and errors have decreased because we are able to see our performance and workload pods performing better, increase CPU and memory resources as soon as usage goes above the threshold, and make our application more scalable and improve performance metrics, reducing the number of errors in the application by at least 70%."
"We switched to Groundcover Observability Platform primarily because of the difficult query syntax in our previous solution, and we chose Groundcover for their business model as they don't charge based on log storage, they provide the infrastructure, and from a security perspective, the data stays in-house, which wasn't the case with our previous tool."
"Groundcover Observability Platform has impacted my organization positively as it is the primary way we use observability in our company, so it has a significant impact."
 

Cons

"The RBMS component is limited as you can only record using Internet Explorer."
"Pricing makes little sense. We had examples where it would be cheaper to have two basic accounts than one intermediate."
"Querying data from Groundcover is not easy if you do not have specific information."
"I think it would be beneficial to see the body and content of API calls in the traces as a possible improvement."
"I would assess the stability and reliability of Groundcover Observability Platform as an eight out of ten; while I haven't experienced issues personally, I am aware they occasionally encounter some challenges."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
909,948 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Construction Company
37%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Recreational Facilities/Services Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Groundcover Observability Platform?
Groundcover Observability Platform is already very vast, and improving it requires proper training for even a software developer to be able to use it. A person in tech needs training to navigate th...
What is your primary use case for Groundcover Observability Platform?
My main use case for Groundcover Observability Platform is for application logs, insights, workload observability, and visibility.
What advice do you have for others considering Groundcover Observability Platform?
Groundcover Observability Platform is a good platform and very good to use. I would rate this review as highly positive.
 

Also Known As

CA ASM
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Lexmark
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about CA App Synthetic Monitor vs. Groundcover Observability Platform and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,948 professionals have used our research since 2012.