We performed a comparison between Alluvio AppResponse 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."We really like the scalability capabilities."
"AppResponse is a total solution that gives you end-to-end visibility into applications at all levels, from Layer 1 to Layer 7. We can trace all those sections: physical, IP, transport, presentation, application, etc. It gives us the full picture."
"When it comes to the ability to scale up the product, this is suitable for small medium and large environments,"
"With some APM solutions, it can take a long time to check a periodic report, but you can get all the necessary details quickly with AppResponse."
"Ability to see end to end user, application, server, and network response time and throughput data."
"The most valuable feature of Alluvio AppResponse is the actual response time for measuring performance."
"It provides us with complete visibility of every packet."
"The most valuable feature is performance monitoring."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is 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."
"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."
"Integration between NPM and APM solutions would improve efficiency. There is no agent on the server site related to AppResponse."
"The initial setup is straightforward, but you have to know a little about the product. It's not for everybody to just plug and play. If you know how the solution is implemented then it is straightforward."
"Technical support needs to be more responsive."
"The pricing is on the higher side of things. If they could lower it, that would be ideal."
"Alluvio AppResponse should improve its ability to expand across multiple operating systems."
"They need to better integrate with products and solutions from different vendors."
"Need to bring back the NetFlow module for AppResponse."
"If Alluvio AppResponse reduces its cost, it will be more beneficial for customers to monitor their application and network performance."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
"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."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"They should provide more templates for new vendor devices."
"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 could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
Alluvio AppResponse is ranked 37th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 15 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Alluvio AppResponse is rated 8.8, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Alluvio AppResponse writes "It's a total solution that gives you end-to-end visibility at all levels". 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". Alluvio AppResponse is most compared with NETSCOUT nGeniusONE, ThousandEyes, Dynatrace, AppDynamics and Cisco Secure Network Analytics, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, SCOM, AppDynamics, Prometheus and BMC TrueSight Operations Management. See our Alluvio AppResponse 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.