"The VPN is one of the solution's most valuable features for us."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to receive in-depth information about applications. It can detect a lot of important information."
"There are many valuable features in New Relic APM. We developed some software applications and we are able to monitor the errors very easily. Their log security retention is very good."
"The simplicity of the dashboard is very good."
"We like the performance of the product."
"Working with the solution is very easy. It's user-friendly."
"The stability of New Relic APM is very good."
"The monitoring so far has been good and we are happy with it."
"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."
"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."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"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."
"Technical support is always live and they're supportive."
"Some of the most valuable features of SolarWinds are the topology discovery and network performance analysis."
"New Relic APM could improve error debugging and the correlation with the logs. We are receiving some alerts or alarms but we need to correlate with the error log, but it is difficult if it is more than seven months retention period, it is hard to trace. We need this especially for getting historical information."
"They should bring the pricing down to be more competitive."
"It is very difficult to award the service level cycles at an endpoint level."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"The older view is much better than the new view that they have. We'd like to go back to that previous version. The user interface just isn't as nice as it used to be."
"I haven't come across any features that are lacking."
"It would be nice if there were pre-made dashboards."
"There has been some problem with the agent, and it is just not working well. It is not able to record information with the application server. They have been able to fix the issue, but it took quite a long time. This is the main issue in the APM products and also in New Relic. The mobile application monitoring has been pretty difficult to set up and also quite expensive. It should be a little bit easier and cheaper. Because it is pretty difficult and expensive, many customers don't take it."
"I would be very interested in having transaction traceability included in the product, to give us a better view of what is really going wrong in a particular method and action."
"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."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring."
"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."
"AppOptics would benefit from having a much more centralized view."
"In terms of the technology, I think they need to put some more advanced troubleshooting into SolarWinds, in terms of AI capabilities. That's the next generation, especially in the cases of APIs which have already adopted AI capabilities into their products."
Micro Focus SiteScope is ranked 14th in Application Performance Management (APM) with 6 reviews while SolarWinds AppOptics is ranked 30th in Application Performance Management (APM) with 2 reviews. Micro Focus SiteScope is rated 6.8, while SolarWinds AppOptics is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Micro Focus 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 SolarWinds AppOptics writes "Useful features for network operations ". Micro Focus SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, Splunk, AppDynamics, SCOM and Oracle Enterprise Manager, whereas SolarWinds AppOptics is most compared with Dynatrace, SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor, Zabbix, AppDynamics and DX Unified Infrastructure Management. See our Micro Focus SiteScope vs. SolarWinds AppOptics report.
See our list of best Application Performance Management (APM) vendors.
We monitor all Application Performance Management (APM) 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.
