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."Provides visibility into the performance uptime."
"Our company has a corporate account for Google Cloud and so our systems and clusters integrate really well."
"It's easy to use."
"The cloud login enables us to get our logs from the different platforms that we currently use."
"I like the monitoring feature."
"We find the solution to be stable."
"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."
"Google's technical support is very good."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pros →
"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."
"There's no agent you need installed on the servers. In our environment, we have some servers out of our control so we cannot manage them. We use SiteScope to monitor the availability, the resources on the servers, etc. This allows us to do this job without installing agents so there's no need to take care of anything on the server."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"While we are satisfied with the overall performance, in certain cases we must add additional metrics and additional tools like Grafana and Dynatrace."
"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 product provides minimal metrics that are insufficient."
"It could be more stable."
"It could be even more automated."
"It is difficult to estimate in advance how much something is going to cost."
"This solution could be improved if it offered the ability to analyze charts, such as a solution like Kibana."
"The logging functionality could be better."
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."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"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."
"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."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is ranked 24th 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 Dynatrace, SCOM, AppDynamics, Prometheus and BMC TrueSight Operations Management. 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.
