We performed a comparison between Cavisson NetDiagnostics and OpenText SiteScope 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."Its end-to-end dashboard provides information on all the integration callouts happening on the server side."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"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."
"They can improve on providing "help and navigation" for each feature available in the UI."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"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."
"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."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"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 tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
Earn 20 points
Cavisson NetDiagnostics is ranked 87th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Cavisson NetDiagnostics is rated 10.0, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cavisson NetDiagnostics writes "Improves our application at the code level because of its different performance metrics". 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". Cavisson NetDiagnostics is most compared with , whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security.
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.