We performed a comparison between IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager 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."IBM's main value lies in its integration with its own technologies, which can be seen as a benefit in environments where IBM products are extensively used."
"The solution is very stable. We never had any issues with stability."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"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."
"VM monitoring is pretty good showing good visualizations of how VMs are operating within the context of all the VMs running on the same hypervisor."
"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."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"The user interface was not good."
"The installation process is difficult, requiring continuous support and specialist expertise due to our limited knowledge of managing it effectively."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring."
"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."
"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 graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
More IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager is ranked 55th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 2 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 27th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager is rated 6.6, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager writes "Integrates well with IBM technologies, but it's outdated and lacks essential features". 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". IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager is most compared with Dynatrace, IBM Application Performance Management and Azure Monitor, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager 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.