No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Groundcover Observability Platform vs OpenText Business Process Monitoring comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Groundcover Observability P...
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
47th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (41st), AI Observability (25th)
OpenText Business Process M...
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
44th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Groundcover Observability Platform is 0.3%. The mindshare of OpenText Business Process Monitoring is 0.6%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Business Process Monitoring0.6%
Groundcover Observability Platform0.3%
Other99.1%
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

EO
Software Engineer at FairMoney
Centralized observability has improved transaction monitoring and now reduces errors through faster troubleshooting
Groundcover Observability Platform is already very vast, and improving it requires proper training for even a software developer to be able to use it. A person in tech needs training to navigate the system. The UI is better, but it can be improved to include a more intuitive design that easily explains itself to users so that navigation is simpler. Many features are hidden, and you need someone who is experienced with the platform to direct you on how to view certain information or complete specific tasks and walk you through the process. It would be better if Groundcover focused more on simplifying the user interface and improving human-computer interactions of the dashboard to make it so easy for a new developer or specialist to navigate and get what they need quickly. Querying data from Groundcover is not easy if you do not have specific information. You cannot perform a wildcard search in the text box. If you go to the log and enter an error message, it will not bring any results for you. You must first specify the workload or pods you are looking for, then enter the error. You need to add tags and put in your strings to be able to search for your particular logs or errors. If you just put a wildcard search in the text box, it will not work and will appear as if there are no logs that relate to that search, when in reality the logs exist. Making it easier for developers, users, and specialists using Groundcover to navigate and get what they need without the help of an experienced person walking them through is very important. This improvement is not about functionality but more about making navigation easier.
Aphiwat Leetavorn. - PeerSpot reviewer
CTO at Marco Technology
Proactive monitoring boosts system reliability but requires improved protocol support and script customization
Improvements can be made to OpenText Business Process Monitoring, especially since we have faced issues with protocol support and creating scripts in past implementations. Creating a proactive request requires a specific skill set, so a template for scripts that work across various protocols should be recommended. The dashboard of OpenText Business Process Monitoring is good enough, but in my operational environment, it is not sufficient. Therefore, I have had to customize everything beyond the package, utilizing Prometheus and Grafana to render more dashboards.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Troubleshooting is very fast compared to manual investigation or using the other forms of logging that we used to have, and downtime and errors have decreased because we are able to see our performance and workload pods performing better, increase CPU and memory resources as soon as usage goes above the threshold, and make our application more scalable and improve performance metrics, reducing the number of errors in the application by at least 70%."
"Groundcover Observability Platform scales effectively with our organization's growth as we add new environments and everything works great, and the migration from our old product went very smoothly, allowing us to deprecate it rather quickly."
"We switched to Groundcover Observability Platform primarily because of the difficult query syntax in our previous solution, and we chose Groundcover for their business model as they don't charge based on log storage, they provide the infrastructure, and from a security perspective, the data stays in-house, which wasn't the case with our previous tool."
"Groundcover Observability Platform has impacted my organization positively as it is the primary way we use observability in our company, so it has a significant impact."
"The solution is very good at showing users ways to use a user action on a website and to see the performance."
"Product allows business analysts to create the application with very little software development time needed."
"The main benefits of using OpenText Business Process Monitoring for my company include anomaly detection and proactive analysis, which enhance our monitoring capabilities."
"The tool team was sort of aware of those tools to deal with. And, that helped us to deliver the project on time."
"The stability has been very good over the years."
"Automates processes and allows reports and statistics to improve the speed at which changes and assets are managed."
"What I find most valuable is that it has synthetic monitoring that you can run from different geographies and identify, as it’s more proactive monitoring than reactive monitoring, so it'll alert customers before they find out things are not working, and proactive monitoring is very helpful to most of our customers."
"Ability to monitor multiple application protocols."
 

Cons

"Querying data from Groundcover is not easy if you do not have specific information."
"I would assess the stability and reliability of Groundcover Observability Platform as an eight out of ten; while I haven't experienced issues personally, I am aware they occasionally encounter some challenges."
"I think it would be beneficial to see the body and content of API calls in the traces as a possible improvement."
"Customer support is pretty average and can use some improvement."
"The solution should offer better integration with other tools from a service management perspective."
"Product documentation is lacking, and sometimes, incorrect. Having better documentation will allow business analysts and data center personnel to rely on the Micro Focus help desk less."
"Product documentation is lacking, and sometimes, incorrect."
"The product has been discontinued."
"Improvements can be made to OpenText Business Process Monitoring, especially since we have faced issues with protocol support and creating scripts in past implementations."
"It doesn't have SNMP, the standard communication protocol for sending alerts."
"Support has experienced high turnover recently due to HP acqusition of the former Mercury Interactive product."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"On a three-year license package, it was a good deal."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
37%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Recreational Facilities/Services Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Construction Company
8%
Performing Arts
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Groundcover Observability Platform?
Groundcover Observability Platform is already very vast, and improving it requires proper training for even a software developer to be able to use it. A person in tech needs training to navigate th...
What is your primary use case for Groundcover Observability Platform?
My main use case for Groundcover Observability Platform is for application logs, insights, workload observability, and visibility.
What advice do you have for others considering Groundcover Observability Platform?
Groundcover Observability Platform is a good platform and very good to use. I would rate this review as highly positive.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Business Process Monitor?
I find OpenText Business Process Monitoring quite expensive, and while it feels expensive, I see it as an affordable investment overall.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Business Process Monitor?
Improvements can be made to OpenText Business Process Monitoring, especially since we have faced issues with protocol support and creating scripts in past implementations. Creating a proactive requ...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Business Process Monitor?
The idea behind OpenText Business Process Monitoring since the beginning is very good, as it is proactive. We do not wait until the system crashes or misbehaves; we put the application request into...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Business Process Monitor, HPE Business Process Monitor
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
United Airlines, Vodafone Ireland, TEB, The Australian Red Cross Blood Service
Find out what your peers are saying about Groundcover Observability Platform vs. OpenText Business Process Monitoring and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.