We performed a comparison between BMC TrueSight Operations Management and OpenText Real User Monitoring based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Datadog, Dynatrace, New Relic and others in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability."The solution's event management capabilities are fantastic. We do a best of breed. If, on the network side, they use a different tool, we pull all that data in so that we have a single console. It's kind of like the monitor of monitors. We're able to aggregate all the different types of data sets, whether it's log data, app data, OS data, infrastructure data, or network data. We're able to aggregate all those events and then correlate and be able to say we're having an event."
"The tailoring of the knowledge modules has been particularly useful as I can streamline the agents to only report on critical events."
"It is very helpful to be able to apply rule-based routing to alerts."
"Signature baselines, which have allowed us to fine tune many of our events and significantly reduce the number of events generated."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The noise reduction for ticketing works much better than we have seen in a lot of other companies."
"I like the deep-dive detail and end-user metrics data. The synthetic monitor is the best one. The best point of the new one is that there's no need for configuration. You can inject the Java script and start to change major developments in the application. This is a good approach, and we received all the data using this."
"The event management part of TrueSight Operations Management, in my experience, is probably the best in the market. You have endless flexibility. You can build your own rules, you have the MRL language, and you can implement any kind of logic on the alerts. It may be correlation, abstraction, or executing something as a result of the alerts. You have almost the whole range of options available for event management using the available customization."
"Very easy to implement."
"The most useful feature of this solution is tracking. When the application's traffic has been monitored it is taken from that particular application and analyzed. It is then given a live session of that particular user. For example, if you are using your bank application to do some kind of transaction, everything that you do can be tracked by that application."
"The reporting feature is good for us."
"The technical support is good at resolving issues."
"Real User Monitor has improved our productivity."
"The Real User Monitor, with its transaction and synthetic transaction monitoring, is the typical classic in APM cases when the customer would like to do transaction monitoring. Micro Focus scores better where the underlying infrastructure management is also covered by Micro Focus tools."
"The most valuable feature is application performance monitoring."
"BMC's online documentation is often incorrect or incomplete."
"The knowledge modules could be more lightweight in size. At present, the installation packages can be quite large."
"I definitely would like to see more improvement in the self-diagnostics. I need to know when anything is not working or collecting, long before our customer finds it."
"Deployment requires lots of resources (servers). It has too many consoles."
"In our company, we faced some issues with the solution’s application endpoint, IP, and the physical location of the transactions."
"BMC's solutions for cloud monitoring (monitoring of AWS and Azure resources) are very poor in stability and customization."
"This solution is lacking in application monitoring features. Technical support for this solution also needs improvement, particularly in product knowledge and response time."
"I would really like to see out-of-the-box support for monitoring uninterruptible power supplies."
"Real User Monitor needs to cover more protocols to provide more in-depth information. It could also be better at monitoring voice-related traffic. There is currently no visibility in that channel."
"One area to improve is the user interface, of course. The second one is their R&D has virtually stopped building a product roadmap."
"Some issues with login errors."
"Everybody is moving away from traffic and installing agents on the application to do the job, but Micro Focus is using traditional ways to collect the traffic. They should change their architecture completely."
"This technology is considered to be older."
"We would like to see support for non-Windows environments."
"When we want to monitor our encrypted traffic, this product doesn't work because our cipher is not supported."
More BMC TrueSight Operations Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText Real User Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
BMC TrueSight Operations Management is ranked 16th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 48 reviews while OpenText Real User Monitoring is ranked 45th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 8 reviews. BMC TrueSight Operations Management is rated 8.2, while OpenText Real User Monitoring is rated 6.2. The top reviewer of BMC TrueSight Operations Management writes "The product is reasonably priced, but the solution is a little obsolete because it is deployed on-premise". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Real User Monitoring writes "The reports and metrics we collect help us to improve our services". BMC TrueSight Operations Management is most compared with BMC Helix Monitor, Dynatrace, ServiceNow IT Operations Management, Zabbix and New Relic, whereas OpenText Real User Monitoring is most compared with AppDynamics, Dynatrace, Honeycomb.io and VMware Aria Operations for Applications.
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.