We performed a comparison between Broadcom DX Application Performance Management 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."CA APM is very scalable and used in a clustered environment because it supports more than its technical capacity."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable is its user interface."
"The most valuable features are the low overhead, the ability to monitor production on 24/7 principle, the ability to decrease time to discover the point of failure in the IT infrastructure or the application environment in a short period of time, reporting for analyzing the performance of the application for improving the code optimizing process."
"I like that it gives you a wide range of data where you can see the application outage response from concurrent locations and the number of stalled jobs."
"The most valuable feature of Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is its very light model with monitoring of servers and network items."
"The configuration and the manager tool are good features."
"Being able to pull in and merge the infrastructure and application data."
"The deployment was easy."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"The Monitor Templates functionality allowed us to spin up monitoring with .csv files pretty easily."
"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."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"Needs the ability to dynamically create dashboards. Right now, we do custom dashboards. Everything is created manually."
"The stability could be more reliable."
"A CA APM agent takes a lot of memory. That is one disadvantage. If you configure CA APM correctly it will still consume around 15 to 20 percent of memory."
"Lacks some integration between all the tools."
"In order for the tool to be successful, at least in our organization, it will need to have more self-serve features for implementation, instrumentation, and then modification of metric data from the APM."
"The APM upgrade procedure is a bit complicated with compatibility issues which can emerge like between agents and EM/Collectors."
"We enountered stability issues. They were mitigated by performance tuning within infrastructure."
"They need to add support for new frameworks, or at least provide a broader guide/perspectives to add them to monitoring specific agents to retrieve metrics with thresholds as a reference to guide the customer as to where they must go to achieve this."
"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."
"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."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"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."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
More Broadcom DX Application Performance Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is ranked 22nd in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 161 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is rated 8.0, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Broadcom DX Application Performance Management writes "Provides efficiency in migration and DAW but requires a high level of administrator knowledge for configuration". 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". Broadcom DX Application Performance Management is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, VMware Aria Operations for Applications, BMC TrueSight Operations Management and New Relic, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our Broadcom DX Application Performance Management 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.