We performed a comparison between OmniPeek 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 believe the most crucial feature of OmniPeek search is the ability to sniff packets based on channel switching."
"The most valuable feature is OmniPeek is user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of OmniPeek was the ability it gave us to see the connection procedure."
"The most valuable feature of OmniPeek is the ability to assign custom color codes to the different packets easily."
"It's a solid piece of software. It's stable."
"The most valuable features are the voice bot, which checks the quality of service for voice, and the expert view that gives me insight on what and where to troubleshoot."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."
"Our experiences with Micro Focus SiteScope have been mostly positive as we can easily work with multiple monitors and different types of monitors pretty quickly. There are a lot of out-of-the-box solutions for us through Micro Focus SiteScope, so we don't have to do that much custom coding for the vast majority of requests that we get for monitoring. There are some limitations that we've run into and some problems every once in a while, but they've been relatively minor."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"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."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"I don't see a clear roadmap in the future for improving this software."
"I am not using OmniPeek for automation, we only do manual testing. Automation testing is tedious to do. The automation should be more user-friendly. I have exposed some APIs but the usage is not user-friendly."
"Making it more clear on how to configure the filters, or really automating them, would be an improvement."
"The solution's automation has room for improvement."
"I would like to see the saving feature improved. We have had issues if you do not save your progress then you have to start from the beginning."
"I would like to see the tool work in an open environment the same as how it does in a closed environment."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"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."
"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."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
"In terms of issues with Micro Focus SiteScope, some that we've run into were unintended, for example, extra executions of monitors and some false alerts when there were problems connecting to endpoints or there were issues with the application that sometimes resulted in false positives. We had a few issues with the way time zones were configured when the system time differed from the time indicated during the monitoring, but those were just little things that weren't too bad. As far as the limitations of Micro Focus SiteScope, the types of scripting files that can be executed are rather limited unless you go to some third-party plugins. These are the areas for improvement in the solution."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
OmniPeek is ranked 29th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 6 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. OmniPeek is rated 7.8, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of OmniPeek writes "Easy to identify packets, beneficial color assigning, and responsive support". 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". OmniPeek is most compared with LiveAction LiveNX, Colasoft Capsa, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM and NETSCOUT nGeniusONE, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, SCOM, AppDynamics, Prometheus and BMC TrueSight Operations Management. See our OmniPeek 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.