We performed a comparison between OpenText SiteScope and VMware Aria Operations for Applications 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 most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"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."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"The tool has capabilities other than managing web-based applications, like URL Monitor and EPI Script. It is also easy to use the tool."
"VMware comes with a support team, and if you have trouble, you can easily create a ticket, and VMware will help you. Therefore, the best aspect is the support."
"No issues with stability."
"People are very pleased with the implementation."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are its ease of use and its ease of implementation."
"The features I find most valuable is the querying and alerting capabilities."
"The solution is great for virtualization and preparing the infrastructure in Tanzu to test products. It's very fast and has good visibility."
"Tanzu itself, integrated with multiple solutions, bestows support and security upon a container platform, especially when it comes to managing open-source container platforms such as Kubernetes."
"For us, the ease of deployment in combination with TMZ was the most important part because we don't have to manually deploy a complex monitoring solution. We can more or less do that with the click of a button, and we are not dependent on the developers to provide us with all the necessary features and functions to make that work. We can just deploy it on a workload cluster and monitor at least a good part of the workload. If we want to go into detail, we clearly need to make changes, but for a good part of application monitoring, it gives us good insights."
"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."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"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."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"The implementation is a long process that should be improved."
"They could make it more easy to plug-in data so that a nontechnical person will be able to use it, like accountants or finance people. That way they don't have to ask us."
"The main problem I have is that the license cost is very high."
"The documentation and integration with Kubernetes could be improved."
"I would like to see integration with Kubernetes cluster and APIs so that you can manage the entire stack."
"In the new version, I would love to see more prediction capabilities. It would be great if one could see the alerts get a little more enriched with information and become more human-friendly instead of the technical stuff that they put in there. I think those would be really awesome outcomes to get."
"The initial setup should be easier and more seamless."
"Its billing model is consumption-based. I understand the consumption-based model, but it is not necessarily easy to estimate and guess how many points or how much we are going to consume on a specific application up until we get to that point. So, for us, it would be helpful to have more insights or predictability into what we can expect from a cost perspective if we are starting to use specific features. This can potentially also drive our consumption a bit more."
More VMware Aria Operations for Applications Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews while VMware Aria Operations for Applications is ranked 34th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 9 reviews. OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6, while VMware Aria Operations for Applications is rated 7.6. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware Aria Operations for Applications writes "Easy to deploy, worth the money, and helpful for uptime monitoring and performance insights". OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas VMware Aria Operations for Applications is most compared with Dynatrace, Grafana, Zabbix, Datadog and AppDynamics. See our OpenText SiteScope vs. VMware Aria Operations for Applications 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.