OpenText Real User Monitoring vs Stackify comparison

OpenText and Stackify are both solutions in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category. OpenText is ranked #45 with an average rating of 7.7, while Stackify is ranked #61. OpenText holds a 0.2% mindshare in APM, compared to Stackify’s 0.2% mindshare. Additionally, 58% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 71% of Stackify users who would recommend it.

OpenText Real User Monitoring

Read 11 OpenText Real User Monitoring reviews

465 Views
419 Comparison Views

58% willing to recommend

Stackify

Read 6 Stackify reviews

822 Views
477 Comparison Views

71% willing to recommend

OpenText Real User Monitoring

Stackify

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

OpenText Real User Monitoring and Stackify are widely used for monitoring and troubleshooting application performance. Users report that Stackify has a slight edge due to its comprehensive features, despite OpenText Real User Monitoring having better pricing and customer support.

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

OpenText offers robust real user monitoring capabilities, providing insights into user behavior and application performance. Stackify is praised for its versatile APM solution that combines error tracking, log management, and performance monitoring in one platform. Users find Stackify’s integrated approach more valuable.

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

OpenText users highlight the need for improved reporting functionality and more user-friendly dashboards. Stackify users indicate a need for better documentation and integration capabilities.

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

OpenText is favored for its straightforward deployment process and responsive customer support. Stackify users report a slightly more complex setup but commendable support experience. Differences in deployment complexity can impact initial user satisfaction.

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

OpenText is appreciated for its cost-effective pricing and perceived better return on investment due to lower setup costs. Stackify, although priced higher, is considered worth the investment by users due to its extensive feature set and high perceived ROI.

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Real User Monitoring vs. Stackify

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,140 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

45th

Average Rating

6.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Stackify

Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

61st

Average Rating

7.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

IT Infrastructure Monitoring (59th), Log Management (61st)

Mindshare comparison

As of August 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 Stackify is 0.2%, up from 0.2% 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

Kalyan Somisetty

Senior Developer at PRESIS KONSULT

Simple, easy to configure, and offers trial versions

In the next version, which I want to try, it'll show the comparison of the old responses of the APS. For example, how much time the old response and the new response with the changes. Right now, I cannot differentiate. The graphical interface should be able to capture nicely how much time it has taken and it should be very clear. Sometimes it confuses us. For example, what is this APA for? What were the average responses and how many requests have happened? It needs to give a clear picture. They should enable request and response capturing in the Stackify user interface to show what the request for the APA is. Then, it'll be very good. It should be able to capture the payload. For example, what is the request and what is the response? If it has a nice way of capturing everything then it would be easy. There is no need of using ELK again for logging. As of now, people will use Stackify or maybe Grafana for seeing the stats of the application or responses, however, it doesn't have the capabilities to show everything. People will go for any exception handling or checking the request and response in the ELK. If Stackify can do this future, then it'll be an easier single tool. It is anyway intercepting the logs, application logs. I don't think it's a big matter to capture extra data with the requested response. That requested response capturing also should be configurable since some people want the question response to be captured and for the people that don't want it, we can use that feature. It can be enabled as desired. Many people are using different monitoring tools like ELK, LogStash, and Splunk - many other tools. However, if you can make this kind of performance tool cover everything, then they will not shift to other solutions. It should be easily scalable and configurable in different instances. For example, if the same application is scaled up to differently, it should be easily integrable into Kubernetes pipelines. They should offer plugins to make it more easily integratable. For development enrollment, it should be free to use.

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

"The technical support is good at resolving issues."

"The reporting feature is good for us."

"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 Monitoring tools help proactively identify problems before they become critical by monitoring thresholds. There is a threshold and an SOA threshold."

"It is a good product."

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

"The most valuable feature is application performance monitoring."

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

More OpenText Real User Monitoring pros

"The solution is stable and reliable."

"The filter feature on Stackify is one of the features I found valuable. It's awesome. When I want to get the application logs, the solution gives me many filters. For example, if I want to get logs from my test environment, the option is there for me to select the environment from Stackify, and you can also select the particular application, and you'll see the information you need there. The filter feature alone and the fact that Stackify offers a lot of different filters is what I like the most about the solution because I've used other tools with the filter feature, but the filtering was very difficult, versus Stackify that has good filtering. On Stackify, you can filter the information by the last one hour, or the last four hours, and you can also select the date range and specify the timestamp, then the solution will give you the information based on the date range you specified. Another feature I found valuable on Stackify is its rating feature because it tells you how your application is faring. For example, a rating of A means excellent, while a rating of F means very bad, or that your application is not doing well at all. The ratings are from A to F. I also like that Stackify helps you in terms of load management because the solution gives you information on overutilized resources. These are the most valuable features of the solution."

"The performance dashboard and the accurate level of details are beneficial."

"The deployment is very fast."

Cons

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

"Some issues with login errors."

"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 solution's technical support presents a lot of issues with too many delays."

"This technology is considered to be older."

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

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

"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."

More OpenText Real User Monitoring cons

"I've not used Stackify for a while, and I'm currently using a solution now that's not as good as Stackify. Among the solutions I've been using so far, Stackify has been one of the best for me, but there's always room for improvement. For example, I don't know if it's just me, but when I try to get the log from Stackify, sometimes it doesn't appear in real-time. It takes a few minutes before the logs appear. When I redeploy my solution and the application starts, I don't see the logs immediately, and it would take two to three minutes before I see the logs. I don't know if other customers have a similar experience. It's the wait time for the logs to appear that's a concern for me, could be improved, and is what the Stackify team should be looking into. In terms of any additional feature that I'd like added to the solution, I'm not sure if Stackify has a way to export logs out. I've been trying to do it. On the solution, you can click on a spiral-like icon and it shows you the entire error, and I'd prefer an export button that would let me download the error and save that into a text file, for example, so it'll be available on my local machine for me to reference it, especially because the log keeps going and as you're using the solution, the system keeps pushing messages on to Stackify, so if I'm looking at a particular error at 12:05 PM, for example, by the time I go back to my system and would like to revisit the error at 12:25 PM, on Stackify, the logs would have gone past that level and I won't see it again which makes it difficult. When you now go back to that timestamp, you don't tend to see it immediately, but if the solution had an export feature for me to save that particular error information on my local machine for reference at a later time, I won't have to go back to Stackify. I just go to that log, specifically to that particular export that I've received on my local machine. I can get it and review it, and it would be easier that way versus me going back to Stackify to find that particular error and request that particular information."

"I would like to be able to see metrics about individual running containers on the host machines."

"It should be easily scalable and configurable in different instances."

"The search feature could be improved."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

"Not expensive."

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

"The price is variable. It depends on how much data we have received in that particular month. Usually, it goes up to $2,000, or, at times, $3,000 USD per month."

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

865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

11%

Energy/Utilities Company

Performing Arts

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

Media Company

Comms Service Provider

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

OpenText SiteScope vs OpenText Real User Monitoring

Compared 36% of the time

New Relic vs OpenText Real User Monitoring

Compared 25% of the time

Dynatrace vs OpenText Real User Monitoring

Compared 20% of the time

Datadog vs OpenText Real User Monitoring

Compared 20% of the time

More OpenText Real User Monitoring Competitors

New Relic vs Stackify

Compared 47% of the time

Dynatrace vs Stackify

Compared 32% of the time

Splunk Enterprise Security vs Stackify

Compared 21% of the time

More Stackify Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Real User Monitoring

August 2025

Download OpenText Real User Monitoring product report

Buyer's Guide

Stackify

July 2025

Download Stackify product report

Also Known As

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

No data available

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

Stackify is an application performance management (APM) solution that combines application performance monitoring with logs, errors, and reporting. It is a SaaS solution that is developer-focused. Users can quickly scan, identify, and repair issues with applications. Stackify APM offers valuable tools, such as Prefix and Retrace, which help to make it a comprehensive and valuable APM solution. Stackify is now part of the Netreo family of IT Infrastructure Management (ITIM), which is considered one of the fastest-growing IT organizations in the marketplace today.

Stackify Prefix

Stackify Prefix helps developers write better code, faster. The tool examines, tests, and approves code as it is being written. Almost every new application is code-perfect, negating the need for exhausting troubleshooting and frustrating time-consuming code review.

Prefix is able to discover poor-performing SQL queries, ORM queries, potential bottlenecks, and concealed exceptions prior to moving the application into production.

Prefix offers Summary Dashboards, intuitive suggestions, integrated logs, and distributed tracing. Distributed tracing expands visibility to cloud-native applications, microservices, and containers and can also provide additional transparency to cache services, web services, third-party services, and more. Users are able to easily move from logs to traces and back.

This valuable tool ensures developers are able to consistently release the best code possible in the least amount of time, while improving performance, productivity, and profitability.

Prefix is a very robust and easy-to-use tool. It can be used seamlessly with Linux, macOS, and Windows. Prefix integrates well with numerous languages, such as Java, Python, Ruby, PHP, Node.js, .Net, and .Net Core.

Stackify Retrace

Stackify Retrace is a user-friendly, trusted APM solution used in more than fifty countries worldwide. Users know that Retrace is able to ensure they can complete quicker, more efficient application development and consistently enhance overall application performance by suggesting important intuitive suggestions users need.

This solution is beneficial to both developers (Dev) and operations (Ops) personnel to learn to improve code and immediately finetune issues by:

Establishing effortless collaboration between Dev and Ops personnel via an easy-to-use GUI dashboard.
Delivering complete transparency of all stages of the application development process, from pre-development to production.
Utilizing performance protocols, such as error tracking, application logs, and code profiling, in real time in order to thoroughly understand how long a code will take to complete various tasks.
Improving overall efficiency and productivity by immediately discovering and repairing application issues.

Retrace Real User Monitoring (RUM) uses both front-end and back-end monitoring to give users a complete picture of what is going on with the applications. This intuitive dashboard displays performance with a complete breakdown of resource usage and integrates the server-side and client traces into one engaging, user-friendly, extensive view.

Retrace is an out-of-the-box solution that works seamlessly with Java stacks, PHP, Node.js, Ruby, Python, .Net, and .Net Core. It is also compatible with many of today’s popular frameworks, such as AWS, Azure, Elasticsearch, MongoDB, MySQL, Oracle, PostgreSQL, Redis, and SQL Server. Additionally, Retrace will work effectively with many cloud providers, containers, and languages, and offers excellent and easy integration with today's favorite tools such as Jira, Slack, Jenkins, and more.

Stackify

Sample Customers

Avea, Maccabi Healthcare Services, TEB

MyRacePass, ClearSale, Newitts, Carbonite, Boston Software, Children's International, Starkwood Media Group, Fewzion

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Real User Monitoring vs. Stackify

July 2025

Free Report: OpenText Real User Monitoring vs. Stackify

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Real User Monitoring vs. Stackify 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.