We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor 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."A product that is well-integrated for monitoring Microsoft Azure."
"In the last company where I worked about a year ago, it looked very simple."
"The solution very easily integrates with Azure services and in one click you can monitor your resource."
"The solution's most valuable features are its ability to focus on delivery and maximizing the performance of applications and services."
"The most valuable feature is the universality of their functionalities in all Azure services, including, software solutions."
"It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale."
"Azure Monitor is useful because of the useful application insights and telemetry, such as metrics and logs."
"Log analytics and log queries are the most valuable features of Azure Monitor."
"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."
"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."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"The tool has capabilities other than managing web-based applications, like URL Monitor and EPI Script. It is also easy to use the tool."
"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"Azure Monitor could improve network performance monitoring and make it more advanced."
"n comparison to New Relic, which I've used before, it's a bit more complicated. It's not as easy to use. It also took some time to get it working. The implementation needs to be simpler."
"Azure Monitor's integration with applications could be improved."
"The solution should have cross-connection or cross-communication between tech partners."
"The length of latency is terrible and needs to be improved."
"The solution's monitoring feature has limitations for analyzing multiple metrics."
"If it is configured incorrectly, you can end up with a huge bill."
"The price could be lower but it is not a must."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"Direct integration with an SMS gateway for sending critical alerts to the support SME. This will help customer investing in third party middleware solutions for SMS."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"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 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."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 45 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 27th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "A powerful Kusto query language but the alerting mechanism needs improvement". 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". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Grafana, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics and Prometheus. See our Azure Monitor 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.