Micro Focus Operations Bridge Reviews

My company uses Micro Focus Operations Bridge for APM, monitoring on-premise and cloud infrastructure, including other infrastructure components.

Micro Focus Operations Bridge is a good solution for my company. What's most valuable is that it's a universal system that lets you monitor infrastructure and application services and correlate and display data for IT and other businesses.

I also find the Micro Focus Operations Bridge dashboard valuable, including its instrument analysis and anomaly control features that help indicate root causes and problems with your infrastructure.

What needs improvement in Micro Focus Operations Bridge is its resource heaviness because you need many resources to deploy and support it. It's a good solution for larger organizations, but for small businesses, not so much.

I've been using Micro Focus Operations Bridge for five years.

Micro Focus Operations Bridge has good stability.

Micro Focus Operations Bridge is scalable, but currently, my company does not need to scale it.

Micro Focus Operations Bridge has good support and service from the vendor, but I'd rate support as four out of five because I live in a different time zone, and the support engineer works in a different time zone, so that's a problem. It would be better if Micro Focus Operations Bridge had first-line support in my country.

I have experience with other solutions apart from Micro Focus Operations Bridge, for example, NetIQ Operations Center and NetIQ AppManager. I also have experience with network performance monitoring solutions, for example, Microsoft SCOM, and some open-source products, such as Nagios and Zabbix.

What makes Micro Focus Operations Bridge better than others is that it works as an umbrella and includes different models for different types of monitoring. At the same time, an open-source product does not give you this kind of functionality. Instead, an open-source product only gives you classic monitoring functionalities in some areas of network performance but not for all areas of monitoring solutions or infrastructure.

Microsoft SCOM, at the moment, has many new features, and it's similar to Micro Focus which focuses on network performance and traffic monitoring, so my company uses it together with Micro Focus for monitoring.

The initial setup for Micro Focus Operations Bridge was complex. You have to plan it before you deploy it because it's an extensive product, and for its deployment, my company used a big team.

The full deployment of the Micro Focus Operations Bridge took nearly three weeks, and the integration for operations and monitoring took nearly two months.

On a scale of one to five, setting up the solution is a four out of five for me.

An internal team with good experience deployed Micro Focus Operations Bridge.

The licensing model for Micro Focus Operations Bridge is unit-based so it can be one device or ten devices depending on your situation or model. Cost-wise, it's much more if you have more devices and features such as infrastructure monitoring, analytic dashboard, and business dashboard in your model.

On a scale of one to five, my rating for the pricing of Micro Focus Operations Bridge is four.

I usually work with the latest version of Micro Focus Operations Bridge.

Micro Focus Operations Bridge requires maintenance, and the team that did the deployment also takes care of the maintenance.

Overall, five people within my company use Micro Focus Operations Bridge.

My advice to anyone looking into implementing Micro Focus Operations Bridge is that it's a good solution that gives you a complete picture of your organization and helps you find root causes and problems in your organization quickly, so you can fix the issues faster and save money.

My rating for Micro Focus Operations Bridge is eight out of ten.

My company is a partner and integrator for Micro Focus Operations Bridge.

We use this solution primarily to monitor servers, to do some log file monitoring, events correlation, and events duplication as well as dashboarding.

We have a bunch of critical servers and applications. We are able to monitor using this product to create a dashboard and have automatic alerts to notify the responsible team.

The event correlation is the most valuable aspect of the solution. 

The UI could be better. The ease of use, deployment, upgrades, and licensing could be better. The license, not only the model, rather, the way you manage your users and things like that need to be worked on.

The initial setup is a little bit complex. 

Technical support could be better.

The solution can be more stable.

It's not easy to scale. 

The solution needs network monitoring, and support for more cloud providers.

Anomaly collection could be better. They need better reporting. 

I've been dealing with the solution for ten years. 

While it is a lot better in the current version, it is not as reliable. You need people constantly checking everything, to keep it running. It's a complex product so some components, internally, can cause some unexpected behaviors.

While it can scale, more or less, it's not a straightforward process. 

We have between 50 and 100 people using the solution right now. There are level one, two, and three operators and a few system admins. 

We do not have plans to increase usage. 

We aren't very satisfied with technical support.

Neutral

I did not previously use a different solution. I use something similar in parallel, however, it's not a replacement. 

The initial setup is a bit more complex than straightforward. I'd rate it a three out of five in terms of ease of setup.

I was not here for the latest deployment. However, based on my experience, usually, it takes at least one month to more to plan, prepare, deploy, and configure.

We have five people who can handle deployment and maintenance. 

The deployment was handled in-house with some professional services helping as well. 

While we don't precisely calculate the ROI, we have seen it.

It's quite an expensive solution. I rate it five out of five in terms of the high cost.

I did not previously evaluate other solutions. 

We're using a mix of versions 2020.11 and 2022.05.

I'd advise new users to be prepared to face issues and have problems with the support.

I would rate the product seven out of ten. 

The solution is mainly used for server monitoring as well as consolidation integration with the various data sources. We use this for where we want to consolidate event performance rates and capture all those tools that were a single unit.

The even consolidation is great and the extract mechanisms give you very good correlation features.

The stability is good.

I've found the solution to be very scalable. 

The setup process can get a little bit complex. 

There is new development happening, however, it's important that certain legacy applications should be supported in the future.

I've used the solution for eight to ten years at this point. 

It's highly stable. It's worked well for me for eight to ten years and I haven't had any issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable and the performance is good. 

The solution scales quite well. It's not a problem at all. If a company needs to expand it out, it can do so.

The initial setup is not exactly straightforward. It's complex as it's not just one product. It has to integrate with many other products. A standalone product can be simple, however, when you have an integrated environment, definitely the complexity is increased. How you design it and whether it is standalone dictates the process. Every setup is unique and different according to each individual company.

The cloud version does have a subscription cost.

While the solution is on-premises, we also have a cloud deployment that has just started. It's available via subscription and companies can use both models. 

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been quite happy with its capabilities and have been quite pleased with that solution overall.

We primarily use the solution for monitoring Linux and application workloads. 

The integration capabilities are very helpful. 

It is stable and reliable. 

I'm not aware of areas that need improvement. 

I've used the solution for quite a while. I've used it for ten years at least. It's been about a decade. 

The product is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

I'm not sure how many people are using the solution in our company at the moment. 

I've never used technical support. I've never needed any assistance. 

I was not part of the original installment. 

I haven't validated all of the monitoring tools on the market. 

We're a customer and end-user. 

I'm likely using the latest version of the solution. 

The solution is a good monitoring tool. People should try it. 

I'd rate the product eight out of ten overall.