We performed a comparison between Devo and OpenText Operations Bridge based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Operations Analytics solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Scalability is one of Devo's strengths."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the ability that Devo has to ingest data. From the previous SIEM that I came from and helped my company administer, it really was the type of system where data was parsed on ingest. This meant that if you didn't build the parser efficiently or correctly, sometimes that would bring the system to its knees. You'd have a backlog of processing the logs as it was ingesting them."
"The most powerful feature is the way the data is stored and extracted. The data is always stored in its original format and you can normalize the data after it has been stored."
"In traditional BI solutions, you need to wait a lot of time to have the ability to create visualizations with the data and to do searches. With this kind of platform, you have that information in real-time."
"Those 400 days of hot data mean that people can look for trends and at what happened in the past. And they can not only do so from a security point of view, but even for operational use cases. In the past, our operational norm was to keep live data for only 30 days. Our users were constantly asking us for at least 90 days, and we really couldn't even do that. That's one reason that having 400 days of live data is pretty huge. As our users start to use it and adopt this system, we expect people to be able to do those long-term analytics."
"The querying and the log-retention capabilities are pretty powerful. Those provide some of the biggest value-add for us."
"The real-time analytics of security-related data are super. There are a lot of data feeds going into it and it's very quick at pulling up and correlating the data and showing you what's going on in your infrastructure. It's fast. The way that their architecture and technology works, they've really focused on the speed of query results and making sure that we can do what we need to do quickly. Devo is pulling back information in a fast fashion, based on real-time events."
"Even if it's a relatively technical tool or platform, it's very intuitive and graphical. It's very appealing in terms of the user interface. The UI has a graphically interface with the raw data in a table. The table can be as big as you want it, depending on your use case. You can easily get a report combining your data, along with calculations and graphical dashboards. You don't need a lot of training, because the UI is relatively very intuitive."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not complex at all."
"Purely, its flexibility is the most valuable aspect. It is hugely configurable."
"The preloaded rules and ways to monitor your systems are a must."
"It has greatly reduced the number and duration of outages as support teams are notified immediately when something goes wrong or even before something breaks."
"The broad integration possibilities, I'd say, with any kind of product, are probably the most valuable feature."
"I've found the solution to be very scalable."
"From our monitoring perspective or from a visibility perspective, HPE UCMDB is a must have. It's an amazing piece of software."
"We haven't faced any stability issues. There hasn't been any crashes or glitches."
"Some third-parties don't have specific API connectors built, so we had to work with Devo to get the logs and parse the data using custom parsers, rather than an out-of-the-box solution."
"One major area for improvement for Devo... is to provide more capabilities around pre-built monitoring. They're working on integrations with different types of systems, but that integration needs to go beyond just onboarding to the platform. It needs to include applications, out-of-the-box, that immediately help people to start monitoring their systems. Such applications would include dashboards and alerts, and then people could customize them for their own needs so that they aren't starting from a blank slate."
"Some basic reporting mechanisms have room for improvement. Customers can do analysis by building Activeboards, Devo’s name for interactive dashboards. This capability is quite nice, but it is not a reporting engine. Devo does provide mechanisms to allow third-party tools to query data via their API, which is great. However, a lot of folks like or want a reporting engine, per se, and Devo simply doesn't have that. This may or may not be by design."
"The Activeboards feature is not as mature regarding the look and feel. Its functionality is mature, but the look and feel is not there. For example, if you have some data sets and are trying to get some graphics, you cannot change anything. There's just one format for the graphics. You cannot change the size of the font, the font itself, etc."
"We only use the core functionality and one of the reasons for this is that their security operation center needs improvement."
"The biggest area with room for improvement in Devo is the Security Operations module that just isn't there yet. That goes back to building out how they're going to do content and larger correlation and aggregation of data across multiple things, as well as natively ingesting CTI to create rule sets."
"There's room for improvement within the GUI. There is also some room for improvement within the native parsers they support. But I can say that about pretty much any solution in this space."
"There's always room to reduce the learning curve over how to deal with events and machine data. They could make the machine data simpler."
"I know that in the next version, X1005, they're moving to more graphical overviews, which should help our senior managers."
"The latest versions of the service reporting dashboards need improvement, such as service modeling."
"The initial setup is a little bit complex."
"The price is quite expensive, and because of this, we may try another solution."
"What needs improvement in Micro Focus Operations Bridge is its resource heaviness because you need many resources to deploy and support it. It's a good solution for larger organizations, but for small businesses, not so much."
"The solution is overall "heavy", requiring multiple servers, even without HA."
"I'm not aware of areas that need improvement."
"The service takes a very long time to start and it requires a lot of resources."
Devo is ranked 3rd in IT Operations Analytics with 21 reviews while OpenText Operations Bridge is ranked 11th in IT Operations Analytics with 44 reviews. Devo is rated 8.4, while OpenText Operations Bridge is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Devo writes "Keeps 400 days of hot data, covers our cloud products, and has a high ingestion rate and super easy log integrations". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Operations Bridge writes "Good event correlation capabilities, promotes a self-service approach to monitoring". Devo is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar, LogRhythm SIEM and Wazuh, whereas OpenText Operations Bridge is most compared with SCOM, OpsRamp, Splunk Enterprise Security, BMC Helix Monitor and IDERA SQL Diagnostic Manager for SQL Server. See our Devo vs. OpenText Operations Bridge report.
See our list of best IT Operations Analytics vendors.
We monitor all IT Operations Analytics 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.
