We performed a comparison between IBM Application Performance Management 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."The transaction tracking feature from IBM is the most important feature for us. It is something that provides a terrific value for us and our clients. It has a lot of data sources and agents that are collectors. It is also stable."
"The most valuable feature is the breakdown that it provides, such as a description of the fields for a particular transaction."
"The initial setup was straightforward and took minimal effort."
"Because we have partnerships with other partners, I can share a bit about what I've noticed with IBM APM compared to other vendor solutions. Specifically, with IBM, the visibility into detailed process information is more tangible. On the OS level, APM displays all processes (or the top 10 processes) that are consuming CPU or resident memory. This is the most important thing that is not always available with other vendors."
"IBM Application Performance Management helped us increased our response time by 80% and cost 60% less."
"I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten."
"It's easy to use."
"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."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"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."
"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."
"Its web user interface is a little bit old in comparison to other solutions, such as New Relic, and it should be improved. Its scalability and technical support should also be improved. Currently, it is scalable, but only in a vertical way. They provide good technical support, but the initial steps for a new case can be improved to fasten the resolution process."
"They should focus on potentially enhancing the dashboard to make it more contemporary and adding some customization options. Furthermore, there might be room for improvement in the pricing policy."
"The demo that was provided to us is not working very well. At times, there are errors."
"The stability is not great and should be better."
"With APM, we noticed that the agent can cause a lot of issues for the application, making the agent very unreliable. Many issues are happening, and we've had to discuss it with support to try and get a fix. It affects application availability, and sometimes actions fail because of the agent, degrading the performance of the application."
"Technical support can be slow and needs improvement."
"It's still missing some platforms. For example, if you look to applications itself, it is missing the interface."
"We have four or five data centers around North America where we have it deployed into a single or a two-server primary backup type of deployment. All those are made available under a single GUI provided by Micro Focus that allows you to put them all together. A room for improvement would be an appliance or a server that would manage all of our other servers so that I don't have to remember to log on to all different servers and data centers. I could manage them from a single location."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"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."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"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 could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
More IBM Application Performance Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Application Performance Management is ranked 52nd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 7 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. IBM Application Performance Management is rated 6.4, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM Application Performance Management writes "A multi-functional solution but has poor stability and performance-related issues". 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". IBM Application Performance Management is most compared with Instana Dynamic APM, Dynatrace, BMC Compuware Strobe, IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager and AppDynamics, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, SCOM, AppDynamics, Prometheus and BMC TrueSight Operations Management. See our IBM Application Performance Management 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.
