We performed a comparison between OpenText SiteScope and Prometheus 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."VM monitoring is pretty good showing good visualizations of how VMs are operating within the context of all the VMs running on the same hypervisor."
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"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."
"The tool has capabilities other than managing web-based applications, like URL Monitor and EPI Script. It is also easy to use the tool."
"The dashboard is very valuable."
"The solution helps us to scale our products and services, and it helps me by gathering those metrics."
"The product has an easy-to-understand interface."
"The most valuable feature of Prometheus is the ease of pulling the metrics."
"Prometheus gives us high availability automatically."
"Prometheus provides a flexible and adjustable querying and describing time, allowing for more responsive monitoring."
"It is highly valuable as it serves as the foundation for our infrastructure monitoring tools."
"The product’s scalability is valuable."
"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."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"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."
"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."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"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."
"The setup could be made easier for new users because it requires a bit of advance knowledge or experience."
"The DSL could be improved."
"A slight alteration to the user interface should be made to increase efficiency and streamline the process. Currently, we are utilizing Prometheus to gather and compile metrics and then utilizing Grafana to display them in the form of a graph. However, I believe that Prometheus has the capability to handle both of these tasks on its own, with perhaps the addition of a supplementary plugin. By doing so, the need for utilizing two separate applications will be eliminated."
"Its stability could be even better."
"There is a need for a more comprehensive overview of exporters, especially when dealing with many of them."
"The scalability must be improved."
"There isn’t much clarity regarding the issues that happen at the server end. It is a push model and from the client’s point of view, it needs to look better and solve remote issues."
"I would like to see improvement in the analysis tools and customization features."
OpenText SiteScope is ranked 25th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews while Prometheus is ranked 11th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 28 reviews. OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6, while Prometheus is rated 8.2. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Prometheus writes "A very flexible open box that can be used vastly to do anything you need". OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, BMC TrueSight Operations Management and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas Prometheus is most compared with Azure Monitor, New Relic, Dynatrace and Sentry. See our OpenText SiteScope vs. Prometheus 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.