We performed a comparison between New Relic 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."Their technical support is pretty good and responsive. We have a real good relationship with them."
"Server uptime is its most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the New Relic APM module to deep-dive into the application, to get bottlenecks to the surface, and to improve application performance. Also, the New Relic Insights module creates a real-time dashboard on application performance to create awareness for the DevOps team."
"Working with the solution is very easy. It's user-friendly."
"It is a one stop shop and integrated with PagerDuty seamlessly. The solution is pretty self-contained."
"The most important thing is that it tells us where the latency in throughput and response time are."
"We use it for monitoring, identifying when services go down, or when they are outside of what we would consider normal operations."
"The most valuable features are the dashboards and tracing."
"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 can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"The product's readymade templates are perfect. It supports us a lot when we don't have much experience with the product. The templates offers us direction to proceed."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"How granular I could go down at looking at certain data, especially related to the operations, is limited."
"The initial setup can be made easier. Like Mixpanel, New Relic can also have a step-by-step guide for the setup process."
"It is a serious tool and requires a lot of time invested in order to understand how it works."
"I would like to be able to invest less time in IT and ad hocs. We should be concentrating on other issues."
"The solution only supports the cloud platform and not on-premises."
"New Relic needs to improve is the user data schema."
"One thing I'd like to see in any APM, especially New Relic, is the ability to use distributed transactions. When one microservice calls another, it calls another database and microservice. The entire data visualization layer will not be able to correlate from one microservice from end to end and return on that path. Distributed transactions would be a great addition that would make life simpler. Unfortunately, no APM has that end-to-end capability."
"There are times when you restart the engines and the servers have a unique ID for the host and you need to remove the server. It is difficult because some are on-premise and others are production hosts. Having downtime is not very good when updating. However, it is not a constant issue."
"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."
"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."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
"They should provide more templates for new vendor devices."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"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."
New Relic is ranked 3rd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 152 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 27th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. New Relic is rated 8.6, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of New Relic writes "Has a simple user interface and end-to-end monitoring and self-healing features". 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". New Relic is most compared with Dynatrace, Datadog, Elastic Observability, Grafana and Prometheus, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and BMC TrueSight Operations Management. See our New Relic 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.