We performed a comparison between Broadcom DX Application Performance Management 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 ability to accomplish the identification of the root cause of problems with applications in drill-down level by integrating the suite with tools for managing and monitoring."
"An application is quite complicated in the environment of a software reliability engineer, because our applications are like a black box. Thanks to CA APM we are able to transform this black box to a gray box by using the transaction trace functionality services. For me it's the most valuable service of the solution."
"Cross-platform business transaction tracing supports the ability to monitor end-to-end performance across the stack, providing granular insight into customer experience KPIs, which are a critical success factor for organizations."
"Gives us the ability to know how our application is performing in real-time."
"I have found Broadcom DX Application Performance Management to be scalable."
"It's a very stable product."
"In terms of stability, it has been stable so far."
"Stability is one of the strongest attributes of CA APM. It is very stable on all platforms."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"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."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"The upgrade was complex. The documentation could have been a little bit better, but other than that, it was okay."
"They can make it easier to configure."
"Dashboards need to be improved in order to make them self-explanatory."
"Stability could actually be helped because it is a wrapper or an agent on our system. If we are having a bad day in production or if other resources are being utilized, then we will get get gaps in our monitoring system."
"Technical support is slow to respond and also asks redundant questions."
"The technical support is very poor."
"They need to add support for new frameworks, or at least provide a broader guide/perspectives to add them to monitoring specific agents to retrieve metrics with thresholds as a reference to guide the customer as to where they must go to achieve this."
"We need more capabilities to analyze the information that tools collects; for example, using artificial intelligence, or something like that."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
"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."
"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."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"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."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
More Broadcom DX Application Performance Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is ranked 22nd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 161 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 27th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is rated 8.0, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Broadcom DX Application Performance Management writes "Provides efficiency in migration and DAW but requires a high level of administrator knowledge for configuration". 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". Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, VMware Aria Operations for Applications, New Relic and BMC TrueSight Operations Management, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our Broadcom DX Application Performance Management 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.