We performed a comparison between LiveAction LiveNX and OpenText SiteScope based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Datadog, Auvik and others in Network Monitoring Software."We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"Its analytical capability is really good."
"The alerting feature is very good because it allows you to set MOS alerts at various network junctures or data points."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to create CLI scripts on the fly to fix any issues. We were using it for QoS modeling to ensure that we were properly modeling QoS, and it basically said here is what you need to fix to get this QoS done, whether it is ACL or something else. It would either push or recommend. If you have the right credentials, you could also push. It is very good if you are a Cisco shop. It gives you reporting, latency, and bandwidth utilization for your applications, so you can do good capacity management planning. There are a lot of pieces that LiveNX can give you. It is a total NPM solution for SD-WAN."
"The intention and the idea of the filter is great."
"All in all, LiveAction LiveNX has become an indispensable tool for maintaining and improving our network's reliability and performance, ultimately supporting our organization's goal of providing timely and dependable delivery services."
"The product has a very good graphical interface."
"We don't have any complaints about the software. According to my team, it's a very good tool that's very intuitive."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"The Monitor Templates functionality allowed us to spin up monitoring with .csv files pretty easily."
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"Our experiences with Micro Focus SiteScope have been mostly positive as we can easily work with multiple monitors and different types of monitors pretty quickly. There are a lot of out-of-the-box solutions for us through Micro Focus SiteScope, so we don't have to do that much custom coding for the vast majority of requests that we get for monitoring. There are some limitations that we've run into and some problems every once in a while, but they've been relatively minor."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"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."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"This is a horrible solution and I think everything needs to be improved."
"The tool crashes sometimes when we try to pull reports simultaneously."
"It is not as robust as other NPM solutions. For instance, there is a problem while labeling specific applications. It works well with well-known applications, but when you have to put in new applications that are not very known and set them up with names, ports, URLs, or some protocols, it is not as intuitive."
"Improved documentation and more responsive customer support can help in addressing issues faster."
"Sometimes the solution does not register devices properly and that is a bug."
"The only downside to this software is the price."
"They need to create a more simplified UI."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"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."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"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."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
LiveAction LiveNX is ranked 55th in Network Monitoring Software with 7 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. LiveAction LiveNX is rated 6.8, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of LiveAction LiveNX writes "Greta visual analytics and real-time monitoring but requires better documentation". 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". LiveAction LiveNX is most compared with ThousandEyes, SolarWinds NPM, Cisco Secure Network Analytics, OmniPeek and NETSCOUT nGeniusONE, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security.
We monitor all Network Monitoring Software 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.
