We performed a comparison between Elastic Observability 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 Elastic User Interface framework lets us do custom development when needed. You need to have some Javascript knowledge. We need that knowledge to develop new custom tests."
"We use AppDynamics and Elastic. The reason why we're using Elastic APM is because of the license count. It's very favorable compared to AppDynamics. It's inexpensive; it's economical."
"The price is very less expensive compared to the other solutions."
"We can view and connect different sources to the dashboard using it."
"The solution has been stable in our usage."
"The ability to ensure that the data is searchable and maintainable is highly valuable for our purposes."
"Elastic APM has plenty of features, such as the Elastic server for Kibana and many additional plugins. It's a comprehensive tool when used as a logging platform."
"It is a powerful tool that allows users to collect and transform logs as needed, enabling flexible visualization and analysis."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"The auto-discovery isn't nearly as good. That's a big portion of it. When you drop the agent onto the JVM and you're trying to figure things out, having to go through and manually do all that is cumbersome."
"There is room for improvement regarding its APM capabilities."
"Elastic Observability needs to have better standardization, logging, and schema."
"Elastic Observability is an excellent product for monitoring and visibility, but it lacks predictive analytics. Most solutions are aligned with the AIOps requirements, but this piece is missing in Elastic and should be included."
"Elastic Observability is difficult to use. There are only three options for customization but this can be difficult for our use case. We do not have other options to choose the metrics shown, such as CPU or memory usage."
"More web features could be added to the product."
"Elastic Observability is reactive rather than proactive. It should act as an ITSM tool and be able to create tickets and alerts on Jira."
"If we had some pre-defined templates for observability that we could start using right away after deploying it – instead of having to build or to change some of the dashboards – that would be helpful."
"They should provide more templates for new vendor devices."
"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."
"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."
"We have four or five data centers around North America where we have it deployed into a single or a two-server primary backup type of deployment. All those are made available under a single GUI provided by Micro Focus that allows you to put them all together. A room for improvement would be an appliance or a server that would manage all of our other servers so that I don't have to remember to log on to all different servers and data centers. I could manage them from a single location."
"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."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
Elastic Observability is ranked 7th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 22 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 27th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Elastic Observability is rated 7.8, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Elastic Observability writes "The user interface framework lets us do custom development when needed. ". 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". Elastic Observability is most compared with Dynatrace, New Relic, Azure Monitor, Sentry and AppDynamics, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our Elastic Observability 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.