We performed a comparison between AppDynamics 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."The most valuable feature in AppDynamics is the identifying of the slow responses. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"We can make custom alerts in our system for specific issues like high CPU utilization or application downtime."
"The transaction snapshots let you find out where the application broke; it pinpoints where in the call stack, and then how long it took to resolve."
"AppDynamics' most valuable features are the response time of the business transaction modules, the ability to monitor multiple services, and testing and developing environments."
"The most valuable feature is the detailed statistics, like the consumer count, for the ActiveMQ server."
"It has improved our organization with its ability to catch issues quickly and fix them."
"The real user monitoring helps us evaluate our customers' real experiences, which is valuable as an eCommerce company."
"It is a good monitoring tool. Its stability is very good."
"Simple deployment: The deployment uses protocols such as NetBios, SSH, WMI, SNMP, which means that any device with any of these protocols will be monitored."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."
"There's no agent you need installed on the servers. In our environment, we have some servers out of our control so we cannot manage them. We use SiteScope to monitor the availability, the resources on the servers, etc. This allows us to do this job without installing agents so there's no need to take care of anything on the server."
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"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 solution could be more user-friendly for diagnostic purposes. Anyone who is using the solution should be able to infer what that error is about, they should be able to troubleshoot it better."
"AppDynamics could benefit from greater integration with emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning."
"The end-user experience is not really good because we can't catch all of the transactions. We only can catch the full stack of flow transactions, but I think that this is caused by the technology they use. If they will catch every transaction, it will cause a very big load on the performance of applications. The monitoring of all transactions needs improvement."
"There are too many installers available for this solution."
"It could do with more than one data centre/multiple AWS accounts in a pane of glass. Also, improved scalability to large environments would be helpful."
"This solution is expensive."
"AppDynamics should improve its ability to track all the transactions."
"The resolution time takes longer than expected."
"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."
"In terms of issues with Micro Focus SiteScope, some that we've run into were unintended, for example, extra executions of monitors and some false alerts when there were problems connecting to endpoints or there were issues with the application that sometimes resulted in false positives. We had a few issues with the way time zones were configured when the system time differed from the time indicated during the monitoring, but those were just little things that weren't too bad. As far as the limitations of Micro Focus SiteScope, the types of scripting files that can be executed are rather limited unless you go to some third-party plugins. These are the areas for improvement in the solution."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"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."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
AppDynamics is ranked 5th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 153 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. AppDynamics is rated 8.2, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. 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 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". AppDynamics is most compared with Dynatrace, Elastic Observability, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, SCOM, Prometheus, BMC TrueSight Operations Management and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our AppDynamics 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.