We performed a comparison between BMC TrueSight Operations Management and OpenText Operations Bridge based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Event Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup of BMC TrueSight Operations Management was easy."
"The Event Management is outstanding; still is the most interesting part of the product."
"The most valuable feature of BMC TrueSight Operations Management is the dashboard presentation server."
"The most valuable features of BMC TrueSight Operations Management are the blackouts and event management."
"It allows our operations team to have one single application to reference when investigating issues in our environment."
"It is a stable solution."
"Valuable features include wide support for monitoring, strong event management, service management capability, baselining (analytics) and easy to integrate other tools with it."
"What I like best about BMC TrueSight Operations Management is that it allows you to do granular monitoring and improves VM load."
"The correlation feature is the most used feature. It allows you to correlate events from different sources and have more meaningful events."
"We haven't faced any stability issues. There hasn't been any crashes or glitches."
"I've found the solution to be very scalable."
"The most valuable feature is that everything can be consolidated into one dashboard."
"It has greatly reduced the number and duration of outages as support teams are notified immediately when something goes wrong or even before something breaks."
"The preloaded rules and ways to monitor your systems are a must."
"The Performance Manager provides great insight into our systems' performance."
"From our monitoring perspective or from a visibility perspective, HPE UCMDB is a must have. It's an amazing piece of software."
"The product must provide more AI capabilities."
"One of the things that the TrueSight environment is missing is some of the HA abilities. The data collection server called the ISM doesn't really have the HA functionality or workload balancing. It was missing from the previous product as well. It's missing redundancy."
"We have a unique use case because BMC typically sells this solution into enterprises that are deploying it within their IT, versus to a managed services provider like us where we're supporting thousands of customers. Multi-tenancy and the scalability have been challenges along the way, as we've grown... If anything could have gone better as we were ramping this up and adding a lot of volume to it, I would say it's the scalability. That would be one thing that could be improved."
"I would like them to improve the deep-dive details, tracing, and data agents in this product. We have EUEM, an end-user experience monitoring appliance. This one's quicker than the current one, and reporting side and filtration side are very bad. There are many details we look at and explain what we receive information in the current one, but we cannot have historical data like we do with EUEM. We cannot have a powerful point to look for specific traffic from a specific application and a specific browser. We don't have it in the new one. The current BMC also needs to add the thing that control versions."
"The sizing (which is difficult), the maintenance of it and the upgrade paths. This is a difficult area which is not easy to cover, as every client has a different approach of implementing the product."
"BMC's solutions for cloud monitoring (monitoring of AWS and Azure resources) are very poor in stability and customization."
"The product must provide application or service monitoring features."
"The dashboard and performance graphs should include a way to automatically schedule and export reports."
"The solution is overall "heavy", requiring multiple servers, even without HA."
"pology-based event correlation does not work well with NNM events."
"Remove the dependency of Java technology. This is a feature used for admin purposes to update the modeling."
"I'm not aware of areas that need improvement."
"It is a very complicated product. It's difficult to manage. Nowadays, products are very easy to manage, deploy, and integrate, but Operations Bridge is very complicated to manage."
"The deployment of agents on new CI should be improved. There should be some kind of automation to directly deploy them from the console. It can maybe have some more AI functions because most of the other tools are going in that direction."
"The pricing could be improved."
"We are waiting for quicker release cycles. Also containerized upgrade, so that you don't have to bring a system entirely down to make a minor upgrade, in fact, or a minor patch."
More BMC TrueSight Operations Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
BMC TrueSight Operations Management is ranked 1st in Event Monitoring with 50 reviews while OpenText Operations Bridge is ranked 8th in Event Monitoring with 44 reviews. BMC TrueSight Operations Management is rated 8.2, while OpenText Operations Bridge is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of BMC TrueSight Operations Management writes "The product is reasonably priced, but the solution is a little obsolete because it is deployed on-premise". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Operations Bridge writes "Good event correlation capabilities, promotes a self-service approach to monitoring". BMC TrueSight Operations Management is most compared with BMC Helix Monitor, Dynatrace, ServiceNow IT Operations Management, Zabbix and New Relic, whereas OpenText Operations Bridge is most compared with SCOM, OpsRamp, BMC Helix Monitor, Splunk Enterprise Security and IDERA SQL Diagnostic Manager for SQL Server. See our BMC TrueSight Operations Management vs. OpenText Operations Bridge report.
See our list of best Event Monitoring vendors and best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all Event Monitoring 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.