We performed a comparison between OmniPeek 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."The most valuable feature of OmniPeek was the ability it gave us to see the connection procedure."
"The most valuable feature is OmniPeek is user-friendly."
"It's a solid piece of software. It's stable."
"I believe the most crucial feature of OmniPeek search is the ability to sniff packets based on channel switching."
"The most valuable features are the voice bot, which checks the quality of service for voice, and the expert view that gives me insight on what and where to troubleshoot."
"The most valuable feature of OmniPeek is the ability to assign custom color codes to the different packets easily."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"Simple deployment: The deployment uses protocols such as NetBios, SSH, WMI, SNMP, which means that any device with any of these protocols will be monitored."
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."
"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."
"I am not using OmniPeek for automation, we only do manual testing. Automation testing is tedious to do. The automation should be more user-friendly. I have exposed some APIs but the usage is not user-friendly."
"Making it more clear on how to configure the filters, or really automating them, would be an improvement."
"I don't see a clear roadmap in the future for improving this software."
"The solution's automation has room for improvement."
"I would like to see the saving feature improved. We have had issues if you do not save your progress then you have to start from the beginning."
"I would like to see the tool work in an open environment the same as how it does in a closed environment."
"You can use OpenText SiteScope for small or middle environments. But if you want to monitor a large environment, it is not scalable. If you can monitor a large environment with OpenText SiteScope, it can be a valuable product."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
"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 tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"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."
"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."
OmniPeek is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 6 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 25th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. OmniPeek is rated 7.8, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of OmniPeek writes "Easy to identify packets, beneficial color assigning, and responsive support". 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". OmniPeek is most compared with LiveAction LiveNX, Colasoft Capsa, SolarWinds NPM, LogicMonitor and DX Performance Management, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and BMC TrueSight Operations Management. See our OmniPeek 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.