We performed a comparison between Datadog and OpenText Real User Monitoring 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."APM is great and has provided low-effort out-of-the-box observability for various services."
"The initial setup is very straightforward."
"The observability on offer is the most useful aspect of the product."
"It has empowered all our platform engineers with a very powerful and easy to use monitoring system."
"The monitoring functionality, in general, and tagging infrastructure are great."
"Datadog's ability to group and visualize the servers and the data makes it relatively easy for the root cause analysis."
"We like the distributed tracing and flame graphs for debugging. This has been invaluable for us during periods of high traffic or red alert conditions."
"Datadog is providing efficiency in the products we develop for the wireless device engineering department."
"The most valuable feature is application performance monitoring."
"The technical support is good at resolving issues."
"The most useful feature of this solution is tracking. When the application's traffic has been monitored it is taken from that particular application and analyzed. It is then given a live session of that particular user. For example, if you are using your bank application to do some kind of transaction, everything that you do can be tracked by that application."
"The reporting feature is good for us."
"Real User Monitor has improved our productivity."
"The Real User Monitor, with its transaction and synthetic transaction monitoring, is the typical classic in APM cases when the customer would like to do transaction monitoring. Micro Focus scores better where the underlying infrastructure management is also covered by Micro Focus tools."
"Very easy to implement."
"We have recently had a number of issues with stability and delays on logging, monitoring, metric evaluation, and alerts."
"I'm not sure what kind of features are in the roadmap right now, but I encourage the development of features for defining your organization, and allowing the visibility of what kind of metrics you can get. Those features would be really useful for us."
"We would like to see some versioning system for the Synthetic Tests so that we could have a backup of our tests since they are time-consuming to make and very easy to damage in a moment of error."
"Sometimes it’s difficult to customize certain queries to find specific things, specifically with the logging solution."
"I'm still exploring the trial version, and it is fine. One thing that I haven't been able to figure out is how to retrieve a report. This is something that could be improved. I probably need to navigate to a place to access the reports."
"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."
"The incident management beta looks promising, but it is still missing the ability to automatically create incidents based on certain alerts."
"As a new customer, the Datadog user interface is a bit daunting."
"This technology is considered to be older."
"Some issues with login errors."
"We would like to see support for non-Windows environments."
"One area to improve is the user interface, of course. The second one is their R&D has virtually stopped building a product roadmap."
"Real User Monitor needs to cover more protocols to provide more in-depth information. It could also be better at monitoring voice-related traffic. There is currently no visibility in that channel."
"Everybody is moving away from traffic and installing agents on the application to do the job, but Micro Focus is using traditional ways to collect the traffic. They should change their architecture completely."
"When we want to monitor our encrypted traffic, this product doesn't work because our cipher is not supported."
More OpenText Real User Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
Datadog is ranked 1st in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 137 reviews while OpenText Real User Monitoring is ranked 46th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 8 reviews. Datadog is rated 8.6, while OpenText Real User Monitoring is rated 6.2. The top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Real User Monitoring writes "The reports and metrics we collect help us to improve our services". Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, Azure Monitor, New Relic, AWS X-Ray and AppDynamics, whereas OpenText Real User Monitoring is most compared with AppDynamics, VMware Aria Operations for Applications, Dynatrace and Honeycomb.io. See our Datadog vs. OpenText Real User Monitoring 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.