We performed a comparison between OpenText Real User Monitoring and ServiceNow Cloud Observability 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 reporting feature is good for us."
"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 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."
"Very easy to implement."
"The most valuable feature is application performance monitoring."
"The technical support is good at resolving issues."
"Real User Monitor has improved our productivity."
"The ability to create a stream based on different parameters, operation name, service name, URL, tags, and URI part, is one valuable feature."
"The solution Lightstep/ServiceNow has a couple of pretty advanced functionalities to help us investigate a deviation and help the development teams have better observability in the environment using distributed and complex services."
"The UI is very intuitive."
"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."
"Some issues with login errors."
"This technology is considered to be older."
"One area to improve is the user interface, of course. The second one is their R&D has virtually stopped building a product roadmap."
"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."
"When we want to monitor our encrypted traffic, this product doesn't work because our cipher is not supported."
"We would like to see support for non-Windows environments."
"The support team could be better. Because of the different versions of different tactics of integrating reactive code base, the documentation is not very clear if someone has to be onboard. I would rate the documentation of Lightstep a five out of ten. It could need improvement."
"The design of this solution is not very intuitive and probably could come with more friendly tips for beginners."
"The dashboard and graphics must be improved."
More OpenText Real User Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText Real User Monitoring is ranked 45th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 8 reviews while ServiceNow Cloud Observability is ranked 48th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 3 reviews. OpenText Real User Monitoring is rated 6.2, while ServiceNow Cloud Observability is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of OpenText Real User Monitoring writes "The reports and metrics we collect help us to improve our services". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ServiceNow Cloud Observability writes "Provides effective observability and offers robust alerting and monitoring capabilities". OpenText Real User Monitoring is most compared with AppDynamics, Dynatrace, VMware Aria Operations for Applications and Honeycomb.io, whereas ServiceNow Cloud Observability is most compared with Grafana, New Relic, Dynatrace, Datadog and Elastic Observability.
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.