We performed a comparison between IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager 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."IBM's main value lies in its integration with its own technologies, which can be seen as a benefit in environments where IBM products are extensively used."
"The solution is very stable. We never had any issues with stability."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"The Monitor Templates functionality allowed us to spin up monitoring with .csv files pretty easily."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"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."
"The installation process is difficult, requiring continuous support and specialist expertise due to our limited knowledge of managing it effectively."
"The user interface was not good."
"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."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
"They should provide more templates for new vendor devices."
"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."
"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."
"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."
More IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager is ranked 55th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 2 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager is rated 6.6, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager writes "Integrates well with IBM technologies, but it's outdated and lacks essential features". 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". IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager is most compared with Dynatrace, IBM Application Performance Management and Azure Monitor, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager 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.