We performed a comparison between Grafana 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 integration between Loki and Tempo is valuable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the UI dashboard because we need to create a dashboard on Grafana to monitor our data."
"The comparison feature is very good."
"Great capacity planning and the solution has a great GUI."
"The dashboards are the most valuable features."
"What I found most valuable in Grafana is that it has a lot of integrations and features that I need for data processing and visualization."
"It gives us the visibility we need. I like that when we add deployment markers or release markers, we know exactly when an issue arises. For instance, if there is an increased usage of CPU, we can link it directly to the deployment that might have caused the issue. It increases productivity and observability. We can now easily tell when a certain issue arises. It's way easier to debug because it can point you to certain things based on these markers, and we can debug easier."
"It excels in providing comprehensive details when there are downtimes or fluctuations, offering thorough reports."
"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."
"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."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"The tool has capabilities other than managing web-based applications, like URL Monitor and EPI Script. It is also easy to use the tool."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"There are some areas of network drives that are not showing as expected based on server usage."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"I have a problem with Grafana in the area of documentation."
"I had issues with the solution's configuration part."
"Lacks in-depth graphs and sufficient AI."
"The formatting could be better."
"Its interface could be more accessible."
"The solution must provide tutorials and guides."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
Grafana is ranked 6th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 39 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Grafana is rated 8.0, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Grafana writes "Agent-free with great dashboards and an active community". 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". Grafana is most compared with New Relic, Sentry, Azure Monitor, Elastic Observability and Dynatrace, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and New Relic. See our Grafana 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.