We performed a comparison between AppDynamics Database Monitoring 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 product is stable and the technical support is good."
"AppDynamics is scalable. They can monitor billions of transactions because they're not monitoring all transactions. They're monitoring samples. So, they can offer good monitoring for the huge sites."
"The solution is very, very stable. We haven't faced any bugs or glitches on the system."
"The features related to the application performance in AppDynamics Database Monitoring are the most valuable."
"AppDynamics Database Monitoring's most valuable feature is the ability of the out-of-the-box to update the information, provide various metrics, and possibly include custom metrics."
"The feature that is most valuable to us is the snapshot feature. It allows us to get a snapshot of different SQL scripts that are being executed simultaneously and we can identify everything we need on them."
"Data monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"Knowing which tables on the database were working the most was valuable. It helped the client understand where they need to focus. They streamlined a lot of their queries and brought the resource usage down. It helped them to find long-running queries. They rewrote them completely so that they don't take as long and the application performs better."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"Our experiences with Micro Focus SiteScope have been mostly positive as we can easily work with multiple monitors and different types of monitors pretty quickly. There are a lot of out-of-the-box solutions for us through Micro Focus SiteScope, so we don't have to do that much custom coding for the vast majority of requests that we get for monitoring. There are some limitations that we've run into and some problems every once in a while, but they've been relatively minor."
"Simple deployment: The deployment uses protocols such as NetBios, SSH, WMI, SNMP, which means that any device with any of these protocols will be monitored."
"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."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"The solution should add some monitoring similar to Oracle monitoring tools for databases. It has a lot of features to monitor SQL queries, and make some recommendation to resolve it. AppDynamics is just monitoring for delays and doesn't provide any recommendations for that. It's a deficiency."
"The networking monitor function could be better, we are not getting many details from it."
"The synthetic scripting for end-user monitoring could be a little bit broader. Instead of using just Python, they can include a few other languages so that not everyone has to jump on the bandwagon for Python and do Selenium scripting. They can open up that a bit to make it simpler for people to do the scripting."
"AppDynamics Database Monitoring would be improved with more support for microservices architecture."
"I have found it sometimes a bit difficult to trace the transaction all the way through to the application. I'm not sure if that problem is on the database side or on the application side, but that would be something that I would like to be improved. The traceability from the application to the database, sometimes, is a bit of a challenge. If you're using AppDynamics, with the Java agent, for instance, you need to be able to trace it through."
"It could be more user-friendly for beginners."
"AppDynamics Database Monitoring would be a better product if it could support new technology, such as cloud technology. Even Dynatrace lacks support for newer technologies."
"The product lost its place as an industry leader."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"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."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"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."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
More AppDynamics Database Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
AppDynamics Database Monitoring is ranked 18th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 30 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 27th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. AppDynamics Database Monitoring is rated 7.8, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of AppDynamics Database Monitoring writes "Good application performance features along with a very simple and tool navigation". 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". AppDynamics Database Monitoring is most compared with AppDynamics and AWS X-Ray, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our AppDynamics Database Monitoring 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.
