We performed a comparison between ITRS Geneos 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."Custom script toolkits"
"The clean and colorful UI and easy to use options like snooze and active times."
"The flexibility of the product is most valuable. It is highly customizable. If you put your mind to it and think of something you could do, there's a good possibility you can get it integrated within the console, if it's not readily available. The simplicity or ease of customization has been valuable."
"I would say that it is an easy-to-use monitoring tool. Amongst the available monitoring tools, it is a really good option."
"Geneos automatically sends email notifications when any batch job fails, the database is down or the website is down. It is automatically monitoring everything and reduces manual effort."
"Real-time log monitoring with desktop alerts is valuable as it tells us immediately when there is an issue."
"This tool allows one to analyse, integrate and customize as per the systems and allows you to set your own rules."
"The biggest benefit of Geneos is the fact that we can clearly see, if we have an alert, where that alert has come from. We can see the data around that alert and anything that might be relevant is also shown. We can very easily right-click and see why we've received that alert. That's the best part about it, that you've got all the data there with the alerting."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"The tool has capabilities other than managing web-based applications, like URL Monitor and EPI Script. It is also easy to use the tool."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"For the solution to stay relevant in the cloud-based monitoring environment Geneos needs more plug-ins with more features. Instead of offering clients workarounds, the solution should have a cloud-based out-of-the-box version."
"ITRS Geneos is not on the cloud at a time when everyone is moving to the cloud."
"There is a part of the rules for monitoring alerts. I want to understand more about how to choose the samples and the requirements for the rules. That is the part that I want to understand better and get better training for."
"Mobile phone integration is probably not as rich as it could be."
"Their cloud monitoring solution needs to be improved. I have already given them the feedback that it's not capable of meeting the latest technology needs."
"One area where there is room for improvement is the log file. I would like to be able to do a pre-run on the log files. When you are testing log files for regular expressions, it would be good to be able to do a quick check up front on that side of things before you release that into production."
"They have the Webslinger solution where you can see when something is alerting. It's a little bit cumbersome."
"At the moment Geneos is excellent and handling real time monitoring, however not great at doing historical reporting."
"Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
"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."
"They have not kept up with browser security requirements or advances in GUIs, they switched to a corruptible database architecture instead of text config files."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
"Direct integration with an SMS gateway for sending critical alerts to the support SME. This will help customer investing in third party middleware solutions for SMS."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
ITRS Geneos is ranked 11th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 57 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. ITRS Geneos is rated 8.2, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of ITRS Geneos writes "The flexible dashboard sets it apart from competing tools, but it's costly and lacks scalability". 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". ITRS Geneos is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Grafana, Prometheus and Datadog, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, SCOM, AppDynamics, Prometheus and BMC TrueSight Operations Management. See our ITRS Geneos 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.
