We performed a comparison between OpenText Operations Bridge and SCOM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Event Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I find the Micro Focus Operations Bridge dashboard valuable, including its instrument analysis and anomaly control features that help indicate root causes and problems with your infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature is that everything can be consolidated into one dashboard."
"You can create an application topology that shows relationships between different components."
"I've found the solution to be very scalable."
"The integration with the ticketing tool makes sure that there is a record for every issue."
"Flexible dashboard with the availability of widgets."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its grouping scripts and event focus."
"It has the capability to display overall health of the infrastructure and is very useful for executive reports on the health of the infrastructure."
"The solution is scalable. If you want to monitor more you have to buy more licenses, but you can add on. We don't plan to increase usage."
"It's easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of SCOM is the capability of using classes within your management pack development."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring of Windows and Linux servers."
"This solution allows us to standardize all of the reports for monitoring the network, so it helps a lot for auditing purposes."
"We are able to do problem determination on runaway processes."
"The ease of deployment, especially on Windows platforms, is valuable."
"I enjoy its integration with the Microsoft Active Directory functions, which means users, computers, or other group policies can connect with Windows Active Directory."
"pology-based event correlation does not work well with NNM events."
"Remove the dependency of Java technology. This is a feature used for admin purposes to update the modeling."
"The pricing could be improved."
"The service takes a very long time to start and it requires a lot of resources."
"The price is quite expensive, and because of this, we may try another solution."
"I'm not aware of areas that need improvement."
"What needs improvement in Micro Focus Operations Bridge is its resource heaviness because you need many resources to deploy and support it. It's a good solution for larger organizations, but for small businesses, not so much."
"The latest versions of the service reporting dashboards need improvement, such as service modeling."
"The solution should have more tools for monitoring the cloud engine versus on-premise."
"It could use some system enhancements, such as better dashboards."
"The interface is a little bit cumbersome and certain actions could be simplified."
"I would like to see better support for monitoring Unix-based systems."
"Application monitoring must be improved."
"Non Windows monitoring is fairly weak. Network device monitoring is not reliable."
"The solution should be more user-friendly and offer a better user interface."
"It'll help if they can provide real-time or closer to real-time monitoring."
OpenText Operations Bridge is ranked 8th in Event Monitoring with 44 reviews while SCOM is ranked 3rd in Event Monitoring with 76 reviews. OpenText Operations Bridge is rated 7.8, while SCOM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of OpenText Operations Bridge writes "Good event correlation capabilities, promotes a self-service approach to monitoring". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SCOM writes "Has a good reporting engine, but its monitoring of the cloud-based environment could be improved". OpenText Operations Bridge is most compared with OpsRamp, Splunk Enterprise Security, BMC Helix Monitor, IDERA SQL Diagnostic Manager for SQL Server and IBM Tivoli NetCool OMNIbus, whereas SCOM is most compared with Zabbix, Dynatrace, Datadog, AppDynamics and SolarWinds NPM. See our OpenText Operations Bridge vs. SCOM report.
See our list of best Event Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Event Monitoring 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.
