We performed a comparison between AppDynamics 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 most valuable feature in AppDynamics is the identifying of the slow responses. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"The release management capabilities are great."
"I like how the AppDynamics dashboard portrays the information flows. When a task is executed, various flows between different applications and databases happen in the background. The dashboard is intuitive and helps visualize the connections, the directions of the flow, and the information related to these specific sessions."
"Before we moved the code to AppDynamics, we had to compare the agile process and also had to make sure that they're following the standards."
"We previously had an operations team continuously monitoring applications. Now, they just have set things up and our developers can monitor, view, and act on them, accordingly."
"End-user monitoring (web and mobile)"
"It helped to find quick solutions for specific business transactions."
"The AppDyniamics technical support is good. We haven't had any problems with them. They answer very quickly."
"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."
"The dashboard can be better. Also, the automated reports could be improved."
"In the current version of AppDynamics, there is a correlated section, where we can see all servers’ performance along with application performance, but network performance is missing."
"There are many KPIs that are not available in AppDynamics."
"The documentation and training material have room for improvement."
"I would like to see more artificial intelligence and machine learning brought in to monitor the statement and payment sum issues we have."
"Their support should be improved. Clusters and monitoring can also be improved."
"Rolling out version upgrades is a difficult job at times."
"I would like to see something that lets me set real dollar figures, not just to outages, but to the solutions as well... when I'm looking at problems and have found a problem that I know I need to address. I could flag it off and have AppDynamics estimate how long a person would have taken to find that without it. That would give me a lot of leverage for justifying the existence of APM, which I really need."
"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."
AppDynamics is ranked 5th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 155 reviews while OpenText Business Process Monitoring is ranked 58th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability. AppDynamics is rated 8.2, while OpenText Business Process Monitoring is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AppDynamics writes "Very good real-time monitoring capabilities, deep problem diagnosis, and transaction mapping". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Business Process Monitoring writes "Stable with good performance visibility but is a discontinued product". AppDynamics is most compared with Dynatrace, Elastic Observability, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic, whereas OpenText Business Process Monitoring is most compared with Dynatrace. See our AppDynamics 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.