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."This solution provides valuable insights into the health of our infrastructure in real time."
"It integrates well with other solutions."
"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."
"The dashboards are the most valuable features."
"The best thing about Grafana is the visualization. The colors and the ease of use make it very user-friendly."
"Grafana's built-in integration with third-party tools, databases, and MQs is an amazing feature."
"Grafana is a very scalable product. It's a really good product."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the UI dashboard because we need to create a dashboard on Grafana to monitor our data."
"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 a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"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."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"Simple deployment: The deployment uses protocols such as NetBios, SSH, WMI, SNMP, which means that any device with any of these protocols will be monitored."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"The solution should include online support."
"It is limited on the reporting type supported, which is important for managerial-level officers who want reports that are either general or specific."
"Setting up alerts via Grafana is a bit complicated, and alerting needs to improve."
"The service dashboard is very hard and needs improvement."
"Lacks in-depth graphs and sufficient AI."
"There is a need for improvement in automating daily monitoring reports, especially when alerts are triggered due to system downtimes or fluctuations."
"The main drawback is the necessity for endpoint monitoring."
"I have a problem with Grafana in the area of documentation."
"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 need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"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."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"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."
"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."
Grafana is ranked 6th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 38 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, Azure Monitor, Sentry, Dynatrace and Elastic Observability, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics and Prometheus. 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.
