We performed a comparison between Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) 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."Google's technical support is very good."
"Our company has a corporate account for Google Cloud and so our systems and clusters integrate really well."
"Provides visibility into the performance uptime."
"It's easy to use."
"I like the monitoring feature."
"The features that I have found most valuable are its graphs - if I need any statistics, in Kubernetes or Kong level or VPN level, I can quickly get the reports."
"We find the solution to be stable."
"The cloud login enables us to get our logs from the different platforms that we currently use."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pros →
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"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."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"It could be more stable."
"It is difficult to estimate in advance how much something is going to cost."
"Lacking sufficient operations documentation."
"If I want to track any round-trip or breakdowns of my response times, I'm not able to get it. My request goes through various levels of the Google Cloud Platform (GCP) and comes back to my client machine. Suppose that my request has taken 10 seconds overall, so if I want to break it down, to see where the delay is happening within my architecture, I am not able to find that out using Stackdriver."
"The logging functionality could be better."
"While we are satisfied with the overall performance, in certain cases we must add additional metrics and additional tools like Grafana and Dynatrace."
"It could be even more automated."
"The product provides minimal metrics that are insufficient."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Cons →
"Sometimes in a huge environment, I think the documentation does not provide the required calculations so you can't know what the required set up should be. You need to test."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"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."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is ranked 27th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 9 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is rated 7.8, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) writes "Good logging and tracing but does need more profiling capabilities". 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". Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is most compared with AWS X-Ray, Datadog, Azure Monitor, Amazon CloudWatch and Grafana, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) 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.