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."I like the monitoring feature."
"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."
"It's easy to use."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the multi-cloud integration, where there is support for both GCP and AWS."
"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 →
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"The product's readymade templates are perfect. It supports us a lot when we don't have much experience with the product. The templates offers us direction to proceed."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"The Monitor Templates functionality allowed us to spin up monitoring with .csv files pretty easily."
"The product provides minimal metrics that are insufficient."
"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."
"Lacking sufficient operations documentation."
"The logging functionality could be better."
"It is difficult to estimate in advance how much something is going to cost."
"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."
"This solution could be improved if it offered the ability to analyze charts, such as a solution like Kibana."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Cons →
"They have not kept up with browser security requirements or advances in GUIs, they switched to a corruptible database architecture instead of text config files."
"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."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
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.