We performed a comparison between OpenText Business Process Monitoring 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 stability has been very good over the years."
"Automates processes and allows reports and statistics to improve the speed at which changes and assets are managed."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"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."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"There's no agent you need installed on the servers. In our environment, we have some servers out of our control so we cannot manage them. We use SiteScope to monitor the availability, the resources on the servers, etc. This allows us to do this job without installing agents so there's no need to take care of anything on the server."
"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 solution should offer better integration with other tools from a service management perspective."
"Product documentation is lacking, and sometimes, incorrect. Having better documentation will allow business analysts and data center personnel to rely on the Micro Focus help desk less."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
"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 lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"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."
"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."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
OpenText Business Process Monitoring is ranked 58th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. OpenText Business Process Monitoring is rated 8.0, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of OpenText Business Process Monitoring writes "Stable with good performance visibility but is a discontinued product". 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". OpenText Business Process Monitoring is most compared with AppDynamics and Dynatrace, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our OpenText Business Process Monitoring 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.
