We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor 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."Technical support is good and helpful...The initial setup is easy."
"Log analytics and log queries are the most valuable features of Azure Monitor."
"The solution is quite stable."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the alert system, which can be set according to our metrics. The integration is smooth."
"Good load and metrics gathering and very good analysis."
"Provides an overview and high-level information."
"For me, the best feature is the log analysis with Azure Monitor's Log Analytics. Without being able to analyze the logs of all the activities that affect the performance of a machine, your monitoring effectiveness will be severely limited."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"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 can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"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."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."
"There is room for improvement in stability."
"The price could be lower but it is not a must."
"Although it's not always the case, the price can sometimes get expensive. This depends on a number of factors, such as how many services you are trying to integrate with Azure Monitor and how much storage they're consuming each month (for example, how large are the log files?)."
"The biggest one is probably just the user interface. There could be more advanced logging at the database level. They can also improve their query builder to allow you to search for things better, but I last used it about a year ago. They might have already changed a ton of things in the newer versions."
"In terms of pricing, Azure Monitor's billing based on data size can sometimes lead to increased costs, especially when developers need to purge data frequently. While there are mechanisms in place to track and manage this, there is room for improvement in terms of optimizing data pausing and related processes. Enhancements in this area could help mitigate potential billing concerns and provide a more seamless experience for users."
"Azure Monitor could improve network performance monitoring and make it more advanced."
"The solution should have cross-connection or cross-communication between tech partners."
"Azure Monitor's integration with applications could be improved."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"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."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
"We have four or five data centers around North America where we have it deployed into a single or a two-server primary backup type of deployment. All those are made available under a single GUI provided by Micro Focus that allows you to put them all together. A room for improvement would be an appliance or a server that would manage all of our other servers so that I don't have to remember to log on to all different servers and data centers. I could manage them from a single location."
"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."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 44 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "A powerful Kusto query language but the alerting mechanism needs improvement". 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". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Prometheus, Sentry and Grafana, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, SCOM, AppDynamics, Prometheus and New Relic. See our Azure Monitor 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.