We performed a comparison between Datadog 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."Datadog agents act as an integration to different services, providing easy access and management."
"The product has offered increased visibility via logging APM, metrics, RUM, etc."
"Datadog has flexibility."
"The fact that everything is under a single pane of glass is really valuable, as developers don't have to spend their time copying correlation IDs across tools to find what they need."
"Its integration is most valuable because you can integrate it with various service providers such as AWS, .Net, etc."
"This spectrum of solutions has allowed us to track down bugs faster and more rapidly, which allows us to limit revenue lost during downtime."
"We have been able to set very specific CPU and memory alerts, at the very base level, then we started to pull real business value, like 99th percentile response rates for our API calls."
"The most valuable aspect is the APM which can monitor the metrics and latencies."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"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."
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"The Monitor Templates functionality allowed us to spin up monitoring with .csv files pretty easily."
"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 can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"Their security features could be improved. We looked at their Security Monitoring feature but it was early in its development. Datadog are just getting into the security space so I'm sure this will improve in the future."
"We want to reduce having to go to different screens to obtain all the information."
"We need to learn more about the session reply feature inside of DD."
"To be very fair, I haven't had enough experience with Datadog to pick out improvements."
"I would love to see support for front-end and mobile applications. Right now, it is mostly all back-end stuff. Being able to do some integration with our front-end products would be awesome."
"There are things about it that we would like to be fixed, such as it is taking averages of average. This results in data that we don't expect."
"We have asked technical support questions, and sometimes they don't get back to us right away. Or when they do, it is not the right answer."
"The menu on the left is pretty dense (and I know it has to be). I never knew about the cmd+k functionality until recently. It would be helpful to offer more tips/cheat sheets to see handy shortcuts like that."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"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."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"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."
"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."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
Datadog is ranked 1st in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 137 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Datadog is rated 8.6, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". 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". Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, Azure Monitor, New Relic, AWS X-Ray and Elastic Observability, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our Datadog 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.