We performed a comparison between IBM Application Performance Management 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 transaction tracking feature from IBM is the most important feature for us. It is something that provides a terrific value for us and our clients. It has a lot of data sources and agents that are collectors. It is also stable."
"The initial setup was straightforward and took minimal effort."
"IBM Application Performance Management helped us increased our response time by 80% and cost 60% less."
"I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the breakdown that it provides, such as a description of the fields for a particular transaction."
"Because we have partnerships with other partners, I can share a bit about what I've noticed with IBM APM compared to other vendor solutions. Specifically, with IBM, the visibility into detailed process information is more tangible. On the OS level, APM displays all processes (or the top 10 processes) that are consuming CPU or resident memory. This is the most important thing that is not always available with other vendors."
"It's easy to use."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."
"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 still missing some platforms. For example, if you look to applications itself, it is missing the interface."
"Its web user interface is a little bit old in comparison to other solutions, such as New Relic, and it should be improved. Its scalability and technical support should also be improved. Currently, it is scalable, but only in a vertical way. They provide good technical support, but the initial steps for a new case can be improved to fasten the resolution process."
"The demo that was provided to us is not working very well. At times, there are errors."
"Technical support can be slow and needs improvement."
"They should focus on potentially enhancing the dashboard to make it more contemporary and adding some customization options. Furthermore, there might be room for improvement in the pricing policy."
"The stability is not great and should be better."
"With APM, we noticed that the agent can cause a lot of issues for the application, making the agent very unreliable. Many issues are happening, and we've had to discuss it with support to try and get a fix. It affects application availability, and sometimes actions fail because of the agent, degrading the performance of the application."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
More IBM Application Performance Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Application Performance Management is ranked 54th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 7 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. IBM Application Performance Management is rated 6.4, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM Application Performance Management writes "A multi-functional solution but has poor stability and performance-related issues". 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 Application Performance Management is most compared with Instana Dynamic APM, Dynatrace, BMC Compuware Strobe, IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager and AppDynamics, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our IBM Application Performance Management 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.