We performed a comparison between ManageEngine Applications 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."What I like most about ManageEngine Applications Manager is its price point, apart from its technicalities. The solution is cheaper than its competitors. ManageEngine Applications Manager has helpful documentation that makes setting it up straightforward."
"I am impressed with the tool's reporting feature which is simple."
"ITSM is a valuable feature, it complies with the requirements in Pakistan."
"ManageEngine Applications Manager's installation is pretty easy."
"We do not have pricing constraints as an organization, because we do have reservations about ManageEngine being functionally scalable."
"ManageEngine Applications Manager maintains the historical data and it's easy for us to analyze the trends and patterns and fix them accordingly."
"The initial setup was straightforward, without complexity."
"Its price and the flexibility to deploy are the most valuable. Flexibility is very important, and you can scale from very basic to more complex. This solution is a part of a complete suite of management tools. So, it can be integrated with other solutions for monitoring networks, which is very important. You can expand it or interconnect it with many other tools, which is a powerful feature. We have a very good and long relationship with ManageEngine support guys. They provide very good support for us."
"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"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 Monitor Templates functionality allowed us to spin up monitoring with .csv files pretty easily."
"The tool has capabilities other than managing web-based applications, like URL Monitor and EPI Script. It is also easy to use the tool."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"The product's readymade templates are perfect. It supports us a lot when we don't have much experience with the product. The templates offers us direction to proceed."
"They can improve the post-processing of the data. AppDynamics has more powerful tools for post-processing or analytics. It has some limitations in more complex environments, but because we are free to use different solutions, we try to find what is best for the customers or the problem we are trying to solve."
"They could probably rearrange the UI so that it would be easy for people who are new to the Application Manager to configure things."
"Even with the top-notch dashboard, it could be made stronger in order to have an additional plug-in for analytics."
"I would like the solution to improve the ability to track services."
"The problem is that implementation requires a significant amount of mapping effort."
"The information provided by ManageEngine is not deep-dive like IBM and CA provide."
"An area for improvement in ManageEngine Applications Manager is artificial intelligence. If AI is integrated into the solution, it'll be a piece of cake. Currently, it's all configured manually."
"One area of improvement is the dashboard should be more readable and available."
"Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring."
"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."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"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."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"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 out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
More ManageEngine Applications Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
ManageEngine Applications Manager is ranked 35th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 15 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 27th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. ManageEngine Applications Manager is rated 7.6, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of ManageEngine Applications Manager writes "Though it is a useful tool for the modernization and monitoring of applications, it lacks in providing stability and scalability". 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". ManageEngine Applications Manager is most compared with AppDynamics, Grafana, Dynatrace, SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor and Prometheus, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our ManageEngine Applications 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.