We performed a comparison between OpenText SiteScope and Splunk APM 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 of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"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."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"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."
"The features are pretty much ready out of the box."
"The solution's service map feature allows us to have a holistic overview and to see quickly where the issues are."
"The most valuable feature is dashboard creation."
"The features are pretty much ready out of the box."
"Splunk's dashboards are great."
"Splunk APM has helped us to standardize logging and monitoring procedures."
"The volume it handles is very good, including the number of metrics, the volume number of traces, and more."
"The most valuable features are troubleshooting and optimizing application performance."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"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 may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
"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."
"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."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"Primarily, the logs in Slunk APM can be challenging to navigate and comprehend, making it difficult to understand the details within each log. Compared to other tools like LogDNA, which are more intuitive in this aspect, the logs in Slunk APM can require more effort to understand."
"The UI enhancements could be a way to improve the solution in the future."
"The licensing model is expensive. We need to monitor the amount of data ingested because the cost is based on the data collected."
"The cardinality is pretty low."
"The monitoring of workloads when using SignalFx could be improved."
"I've been using the Splunk query language, and it can be a bit time-consuming to set up the queries I need."
"Splunk APM's performance could be improved - at the moment, it's very slow and takes forever to give me what I want."
"Splunk APM should include a better correlation between resources and infrastructure monitoring."
OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews while Splunk APM is ranked 13th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 13 reviews. OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6, while Splunk APM 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 Splunk APM writes "Provides great visibility, analysis, and data telemetry". OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas Splunk APM is most compared with Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence), Sentry, Elastic Observability, Monte Carlo and Observe. See our OpenText SiteScope vs. Splunk APM 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.
