We performed a comparison between Dynatrace and OpenText Business Process 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."The PurePath feature enables you to see the path from click to database query."
"It seems to be very stable. We have not had any outages attributed to the product."
"Dynatrace has helped us reduce outage times and severity of impact."
"Technical support has always been quick to respond."
"Its monitoring and key purpose capabilities are the most valuable. It provides the root cause of problems and helps peers join the war room."
"Great tool for deep diving into performance data and tracking issues through all the connected systems to better diagnose and pinpoint the real issues."
"Dynatrace has great training available. It is easy for everybody to use. Anybody can go out to YouTube, watch a video, and figure out how to use the piece that they need."
"It's very easy to reach the root cause of the problems in the applications, due do the analysis with Dynatrace. The timeframe to update and fix the applications has been reduced a lot compared to what we had before Dynatrace."
"The stability has been very good over the years."
"Automates processes and allows reports and statistics to improve the speed at which changes and assets are managed."
"I would like to see dashboards included, and maybe more possibilities in terms of customization."
"One piece that we think that's missing is, there were thread names that were missing in analytical information in the Dynatrace solution, versus the AppMon solution. The AppMon solution gives you that information, and it is very helpful for connecting dots and bringing all the pieces together."
"The web interface, in some cases, is a little ambiguous to use."
"I would like to see Dynatrace be more user-friendly. Sometimes there are too many options to use from, which is good, but it can become confusing on how to proceed."
"To improve in Dynatrace the log analytics, this is the first thing that has to be enabled."
"Some technical architectures are based on an event mechanism operating via a publish/subscribe system. APM technology sometimes reaches its limits to go upstream."
"Custom reporting is still missing."
"There is still a certain amount of technical skills needed to be able to understand what you are seeing on it. You also need a large amount of technical or infrastructure skills to understand how and where to install it."
"Product documentation is lacking, and sometimes, incorrect. Having better documentation will allow business analysts and data center personnel to rely on the Micro Focus help desk less."
"The solution should offer better integration with other tools from a service management perspective."
Dynatrace is ranked 2nd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 341 reviews while OpenText Business Process Monitoring is ranked 58th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability. Dynatrace is rated 8.8, while OpenText Business Process Monitoring is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Dynatrace writes "AI identifies all the components of a response-time issue or failure, hugely benefiting our triage efforts". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Business Process Monitoring writes "Stable with good performance visibility but is a discontinued product". Dynatrace is most compared with Datadog, New Relic, AppDynamics, Splunk Enterprise Security and Azure Monitor, whereas OpenText Business Process Monitoring is most compared with AppDynamics. See our Dynatrace vs. OpenText Business Process 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.