We performed a comparison between OpenText SiteScope and Scout APM 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."It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"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."
"There's no agent you need installed on the servers. In our environment, we have some servers out of our control so we cannot manage them. We use SiteScope to monitor the availability, the resources on the servers, etc. This allows us to do this job without installing agents so there's no need to take care of anything on the server."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"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."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"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 product can scale."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"Sometimes in a huge environment, I think the documentation does not provide the required calculations so you can't know what the required set up should be. You need to test."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"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."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"I can't recall coming across any missing features."
OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews while Scout APM is ranked 30th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 1 review. OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6, while Scout APM is rated 10.0. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Scout APM writes "Great visibility and reliability with fair pricing". OpenText SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, SCOM, AppDynamics, Prometheus and BMC TrueSight Operations Management, whereas Scout APM is most compared with Zabbix, Datadog, Prometheus, Grafana and New Relic.
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.