We performed a comparison between Datadog 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."With Datadog I can look at the health of the technology stack and services."
"The solution has offered increased visibility via logging APM, metrics, RUM, etc."
"The dashboards and the performance of the software have been great."
"We've been able to glean from the monitors what servers are down, and can alert the team in Slack."
"The most valuable feature is the dashboards that are provided out of the box, as well as ones we were able to configure."
"The solution is sufficiently stable."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the APM."
"Datadog helps us detect issues early on and helps in troubleshooting."
"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."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"The tool has capabilities other than managing web-based applications, like URL Monitor and EPI Script. It is also easy to use the tool."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"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 SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"The pricing should be less of a surprise."
"It does not have the best interface."
"We have contact with many customers that cover many areas, so we have cases where the infrastructure administration could be improved."
"The sheer amount of products that are included can be overwhelming."
"When it comes to storing the logs with Datadog, I'm not sure why it costs so much to store gigabytes or terabytes of information when it's a fraction of the cost to do so myself."
"We need more integration functionality, including certain metrics integration."
"More granular control over dashboard sharing. Timeboard sharing."
"I find the training great. That said, it is set for the LCD (lowest common denominator). Of course, this is very helpful to sell the product, yet, to really utilize the product, you need to get more detailed."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"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."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"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."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
Datadog is ranked 1st in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 137 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Datadog is rated 8.6, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". 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". Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, Azure Monitor, New Relic, AWS X-Ray and AppDynamics, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, SCOM, AppDynamics, Prometheus and BMC TrueSight Operations Management. See our Datadog 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.