OpenText Real User Monitoring vs OpenText SiteScope comparison

OpenText Real User Monitoring and OpenText SiteScope are both solutions in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category. OpenText Real User Monitoring is ranked #47 with an average rating of 7.7, while OpenText SiteScope is ranked #31 with an average rating of 8.5. OpenText Real User Monitoring holds a 0.2% mindshare in APM, compared to OpenText SiteScope’s 0.5% mindshare. Additionally, 58% of OpenText Real User Monitoring users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 92% of OpenText SiteScope users who would recommend it.

OpenText Real User Monitoring

Read 11 OpenText Real User Monitoring reviews

447 Views
247 Comparison Views

58% willing to recommend

OpenText SiteScope

Read 27 OpenText SiteScope reviews

1,474 Views
632 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

OpenText Real User Monitoring

OpenText SiteScope

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

OpenText Real User Monitoring and OpenText SiteScope are enterprise-level monitoring tools with distinct advantages. OpenText SiteScope seems to have the upper hand due to its broader compatibility and integration capabilities, despite complexity concerns.

What features are offered by OpenText Real User Monitoring in comparison to OpenText SiteScope?

OpenText Real User Monitoring offers valuable real-time insights, accurate data, and seamless integration with other OpenText products. OpenText SiteScope supports various platforms, offers comprehensive monitoring coverage, and has extensive features making it suitable for large-scale IT infrastructures.

What areas of improvement can be found in OpenText Real User Monitoring in comparison to OpenText SiteScope?

OpenText Real User Monitoring could improve with enhanced alert customization, better support for mobile environments, and improvements in its documentation. OpenText SiteScope could streamline its setup process, improve its interface's intuitiveness, and address the challenge of complexity for new users.

How is the ease of deployment and customer service of OpenText Real User Monitoring in comparison to OpenText SiteScope?

OpenText Real User Monitoring is relatively straightforward to deploy, but users suggest improvements in its documentation. OpenText SiteScope has a more complex deployment due to extensive configuration options but offers thorough support and reliable customer service that balances this complexity.

What setup costs and ROI can be seen with OpenText Real User Monitoring in comparison to OpenText SiteScope?

OpenText Real User Monitoring offers a favorable ROI due to its efficient and accurate monitoring but could be more cost-effective with flexible pricing models. OpenText SiteScope has higher initial setup costs but delivers value over time with its extensive features, making it a worthy investment for comprehensive monitoring needs.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Real User Monitoring vs. OpenText SiteScope Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Real User Monitoring vs. OpenText SiteScope

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 856,873 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Real User Monitoring

Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

47th

Average Rating

6.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText SiteScope

Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

31st

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

8.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of OpenText Real User Monitoring is 0.2%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText SiteScope is 0.5%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

Featured Reviews

Aphiwat Leetavorn.

CTO at Marco Technology

Offers back-end monitoring, so it can analyze user experience but when customers change the software or version, this tool is quite sensitive

Real User Monitoring tools help proactively identify problems before they become critical by monitoring thresholds. There is a threshold and an SOA threshold. For example, it starts to go yellow, and if it becomes red, the system will crash. When it starts to become yellow (Threshold Approaching), we have to resolve it. This is the same case where we'll know what happened before it's too late. So we can make an early decision to prevent it, maybe by kicking some users off the system before it crashes.

Read full review

Gyanesh Rahatekar

Back office at Reliance Industries Ltd

Achieve seamless incident response with valuable monitoring capabilities and reliable alerts

There are multiple features related to OpenText SiteScope monitoring that I have found to be very useful, such as SSL monitoring. If SSL is present as a file in a server, then OpenText SiteScope is a very effective tool to monitor when that certificate expires. It provides comprehensive information related to SSL certificates and log monitoring. If any kind of required keyword monitoring is present in the log file, OpenText SiteScope has excellent functionality for monitoring. It is very easy to configure and obtain the correct information related to end-user requirements. The agentless monitoring feature of OpenText SiteScope is particularly impressive and easy to configure and gather information from. According to the operations team perspective, there is no impact related to resource management from the agentless monitoring. It demonstrates very low resource consumption related to its functionality.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"With the solution, you can easily access any issues in your infrastructure."

"The reporting feature is good for us."

"The most valuable feature is application performance monitoring."

"The most useful feature of this solution is tracking. When the application's traffic has been monitored it is taken from that particular application and analyzed. It is then given a live session of that particular user. For example, if you are using your bank application to do some kind of transaction, everything that you do can be tracked by that application."

"It offers near-real-time analytics, which is helpful."

"The Real User Monitor, with its transaction and synthetic transaction monitoring, is the typical classic in APM cases when the customer would like to do transaction monitoring. Micro Focus scores better where the underlying infrastructure management is also covered by Micro Focus tools."

"Real User Monitor has improved our productivity."

"It is a good product."

More OpenText Real User Monitoring pros

"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."

"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."

"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."

"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."

"The product's readymade templates are perfect. It supports us a lot when we don't have much experience with the product. The templates offers us direction to proceed."

"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."

"The tool has capabilities other than managing web-based applications, like URL Monitor and EPI Script. It is also easy to use the tool."

More OpenText SiteScope pros

Cons

"One area to improve is the user interface, of course. The second one is their R&D has virtually stopped building a product roadmap."

"When we want to monitor our encrypted traffic, this product doesn't work because our cipher is not supported."

"Everybody is moving away from traffic and installing agents on the application to do the job, but Micro Focus is using traditional ways to collect the traffic. They should change their architecture completely."

"We would like to see support for non-Windows environments."

"This technology is considered to be older."

"Real User Monitor needs to cover more protocols to provide more in-depth information. It could also be better at monitoring voice-related traffic. There is currently no visibility in that channel."

"The diagnostics perspective, particularly in terms of the root cause analysis of failures, should be improved."

"The product needs more R&D to make it easier and more compatible with other software."

More OpenText Real User Monitoring cons

"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."

"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."

"There is a need to enhance the reporting feature in OpenText SiteScope. Reporting related to performance information for historical data needs improvement to provide better reporting related to application availability and end node availability."

"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."

"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."

"Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring."

"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."

"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."

More OpenText SiteScope cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"If I compare with other vendors, other vendors are more expensive"

"Compared to other tools, OpenText Real User Monitoring is an expensive solution."

"Not expensive."

"The price is approximately €30,000 ($35,500 USD) for the enterprise edition."

"The product's pricing should be lower since there are many open-source products that can do the same job with better user interfaces. The tool's pricing is yearly and you need to pay for support."

"SiteScope licensing can be node based-or monitor-based. I would recommend for node-based licensing."

"I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten on a scale where one is cheap and ten is expensive."

"Licensing is a little steep."

"The pricing or licensing cost for Micro Focus SiteScope is often bundled with other things, so the cost for each individual would be difficult to calculate. Pricing could be $2,000,000 a year. My company pays for technical support because it's part of the contract with Micro Focus SiteScope. You buy the licenses, but you're also paying for the support. With Nagios, it's much more bare-bones as far as paying for licenses and the software itself, and my company didn't have to use as much Nagios support yet in one or two years because there weren't too many problems using Nagios, and it's much more cost-effective, so that's one of the reasons why my company is migrating to Nagios from Micro Focus SiteScope."

"It is expensive. I don't like its licensing. I don't like anything where you have to license it by individual licenses. I'm not a fan of that, but that's just me."

"When Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope has introduced approximately eight years ago and there was not very much competition making the price high. However, when comparing the price of Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope now to other tools, they should reduce the price. It is similar to a legacy tool at this point."

"You have to pay for their "solution templates". Other tools do not charge you for knowledge-based monitoring bundles."

More OpenText SiteScope pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

28%

Government

Real Estate/Law Firm

Energy/Utilities Company

Financial Services Firm

33%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

11%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Real User Monitor?

The diagnostics perspective, particularly in terms of the root cause analysis of failures, should be improved. There needs to be more development in this area, as the support and the number of peop...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Real User Monitor?

The use case is about user-level monitoring and the availability of a service for a user. It's about whether the service is available, its performance, and the type of errors a user is receiving, f...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus Real User Monitor?

I rate the solution as nine. It is a good product. Everyone should have it as it is essential today, but choose the vendor accordingly. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?

The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?

The licensing scheme for Micro Focus tools is reasonable, and more affordable. It's seen as medium or de-receivable.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?

The interface of OpenText SiteScope needs improvement. It has a Java-based interface, which is slow and could be simplified for better usability.

See all answers

Comparisons

No data available

Dynatrace vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 13% of the time

Splunk AppDynamics vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 11% of the time

OmniPeek vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 11% of the time

Grafana vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 11% of the time

AWS Auto Scaling vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText SiteScope Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Real User Monitoring

May 2025

Download OpenText Real User Monitoring product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText SiteScope

March 2025

Download OpenText SiteScope product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus Real User Monitor, Micro Focus RUM, HPE RUM

Micro Focus SiteScope, HPE SiteScope, SiteScope

Overview

Real User Monitoring (RUM) an End user monitoring that gives you visibility into user behavior for fast, targeted problem resolution. It monitors the performance and availability of business-critical application services for all users at all locations all the time. It automatically discovers underlying infrastructure and classifies user actions - giving you instant visibility into session and whole service health over web, cloud, and mobile user experience. It allows you to trace user experience across tiers, capture live sessions, see where customers clicked, measure response times, and see pages that caused problems. And you can easily capture and replay user sessions to create test scripts that reflect real user behavior. All this data gives you new ability to analyze which application transactions your users are performing and what application response they are experiencing. RUM currently supports over 20 application protocols and applications such as SAP, Citrix, and native mobile application monitoring on Android.

OpenText

OpenText SiteScope is an agentless monitoring program that tracks the availability and performance of distributed IT infrastructures such as servers, network devices and services, applications and application components, virtualization software, operating systems, and other IT enterprise components.

OpenText SiteScope is an autonomous hybrid IT monitoring system that can monitor more than 100 different types of IT components in real time, thanks to a lightweight and highly customizable remote access architecture.

With OpenText SiteScope, IT teams can get the data they need to keep on top of problems and eliminate bottlenecks before they become major concerns.

OpenText SiteScope can reduce total cost of ownership (TCO) by utilizing agentless technology, which eliminates the need to install and monitor agents on each box. Manual activities can be automated, and teams can save time and effort by using pre-packaged solution templates.

OpenText SiteScope Features

OpenText SiteScope has many valuable key features. Some of the most useful ones include:

Broad functionality built on expertise: OpenText SiteScope's architecture is scalable and supports a broad range of functions, including data collecting, alerting, event management, and reporting. Data is collected via remote access, which eliminates the need for agents to be deployed and maintained on monitored nodes. OpenText SiteScope connects to systems as a remote user via the central server, which supports JMX, SNMP, HTTP, SSH, NetBIOS, and WMI.

Monitors legacy and modern environments: OpenText SiteScope comes with more than 100 built-in monitors that track things like utilization, response time, use, and resource availability.
- Cloud: You can monitor virtual servers and applications on Amazon Web Services (AWS). AWS-hosted applications can provide data to Amazon CloudWatch, which can be used for auto-scaling, reporting, and alerting.
- Virtualization: OpenText SiteScope supports VMware, Microsoft, Citrix, and Oracle/Sun virtualization technologies. Monitor Docker clusters, nodes, containers, and workloads.

Flexibility with configuration: By adding or deleting specific monitors, you can adapt to dynamic changes in data center configuration.

Templates for solutions: The template database is based on best practices for monitoring complex application settings with the least amount of time and effort. The templates include built-in domain experience of specialized monitors, default metrics and thresholds, proactive testing, and best practices for a given application or monitoring component.

Notifications, alerts, and reports: Email, SNMP traps, HTTP post, and database alerts are all supported. Administrators receive alerts based on defined thresholds and schedules.

Flexibility in user management: Using LDAP or an internal management solution, define group-level permissions, construct user roles, and assign security groups depending on role. Extensive WS (Web Service)-based API that automates numerous management situations without the need for the SiteScope UI.

Integrations with SiteScope: OpenText SiteScope not only offers a number of benefits on its own, but it can also be linked with a number of OpenText and third-party solutions, giving teams the ability to properly integrate their IT operations center.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Avea, Maccabi Healthcare Services, TEB

Vodafone Ireland, Kuveyt Turk Participation Bank

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Real User Monitoring vs. OpenText SiteScope

June 2025

Free Report: OpenText Real User Monitoring vs. OpenText SiteScope

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Real User Monitoring vs. OpenText SiteScope and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Real User 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.