We performed a comparison between DX SaaS 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."It supports numerous platforms."
"DX allows you to customize and gives you a high degree of control."
"Actionable insight is the most valuable feature."
"VM monitoring is pretty good showing good visualizations of how VMs are operating within the context of all the VMs running on the same hypervisor."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"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."
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"Old user interface and dashboards could be improved."
"The ability to scale presents a challenge as the cost of handling vast amounts of data in the cloud must be taken into account."
"DX SaaS is a latecomer to the APM market. Some things that are straightforward in Dynatrace are complicated in DX. For example, upgrading the agents is a seamless process in Dynatrace, but it's a pain in DX SaaS. You should be able to upgrade in the Application Command Center. However, it is not working correctly."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"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."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"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."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
DX SaaS is ranked 49th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 3 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. DX SaaS is rated 6.6, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of DX SaaS writes "It's highly customizable but lacks many features of available in competing solutions". 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". DX SaaS is most compared with DX Unified Infrastructure Management, Zabbix, Nagios XI and Dynatrace, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, SCOM, AppDynamics, Prometheus and BMC TrueSight Operations Management. See our DX SaaS 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.