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.

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.

We've had it for quite a while, and I've never done an upgrade on it, but from what I understand, the upgrades are not as straightforward as you would think. I know that we've run into some issues related to porting the database through different versions. So, it's a slow slog. The process has been longer than expected.

I don't like its licensing because you have to license it by individual licenses.

In terms of improvement, OpenText SiteScop could become a better solution by adding more monitoring templates, like RedScope, to make it easier to track specific technologies. It should also improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools, for smoother interactions and data sharing in wider deployment situations.

The Reports and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement.

dashboarding has some limitations,when we're trying to create a performance dashboard on the OBM.

we can't Export our reports on PDF or HTML Format , you have to access  the Reports Directly from the SiteScope

I think Reports and dashboards are area for improvements on the SiteScope. 

Also there is no Web UI for accessing and managing the SiteScope , you have to use the SiteScope Local Client .

We have installed two SiteScope servers for managing 2 different sites ,it will be perfect if it has one management UI.

I consider the Agentless technique is a Pros and corns in the same time as we have to open a lot of ports such  like WMi , snmp and ping on all Monitored servers.

The setup should be simplified.

It would be helpful to have documentation on how to use this tool correctly from the beginning.

I would be very interested in having transaction traceability included in the product, to give us a better view of what is really going wrong in a particular method and action.

This would essentially mean that the tool comes packaged with complete EPM capabilities. You would not have to purchase any other product such as Dynatrace, App Dynamics, or New Relic. 

If some of those capabilities could be integrated into SiteScope, it would have a very compelling value proposition.

It was a great tool for a long time. My go-to tool for everything. However, something happened at HPE years ago and investment in the development of the tool seems to have tanked.  

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, and the licensing is way more expensive than other tools that do the same thing (like LogicMonitor). Monitors have bugs that sit unfixed for multiple versions (file age and SOAP/XML Web Service monitors). The GUI is cumbersome, and it requires a Java client!  

I think, what comes to mind, to be able to reliably do more monitoring on a single Sitescope server in a more compact way, with fewer servers, would be an area for improvement. Right now there’s no way to really say that you’ve hit the limit for the server, but that’s important to know.

Most modern-day solutions in this area include both agentless and agent-based monitoring in the same package. The lack of an agent makes for a simple installation and relatively simple configuration, however, in these days of highly-distributed computing resources Sitescope is missing a number of critical features.

1. The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened. This is often a problem when connecting multiple sites. It also makes cloud implementations less attractive too.

2. As data must be "pulled" from the system being monitored, there is a reliance on a performant network and a well-specified Sitescope server.

Sitescope scores well for basic simplicity and it integrates well into other products within the Micro Focus software family - e.g. Operations Bridge.

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.

The product needs to offer better configuration with an SMS deploy. Right now, it's not configurable. There is no configuration for that.

They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive.

The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability. 

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.

Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI.

Version 11.2X: Within the SiS GUI, you can individually add remote servers, and then configure multiple monitors to use this remote server. Via the API, this is not possible. You must use a template to create both the remote server and monitor. If you need to configure another monitor to use the same remote server, it became problematic. The API also has no ability to configure the stored credentials, and so on and so on. Basically, full automation of the SiS config is not possible, even using HP tools like HP Operations Orchestration, as the application, as I said, does not allow full configuration of monitor components via the API.

There are now subsequent versions released, and I have looked at the API updates included in these.

More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities. Currently there's one for Amazon. There's numerous other platforms like, MS Office 365, Exchange or IBM. I haven't seen one for HPE. Those capabilities are solutions to where they're just ready to go.

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. We have some cases where we need to monitor the vCenters and the whole ESXi, available under this, and VMs. It may impact the server if you don't have the required experience.

Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring.

The tool dashboards are not good and don't meet our customers' needs. Because of this we generally use open source tools like Grafana and we also use Nagios for monitoring as a free tool. We're able to gather gather information from SiteScope or the other network tools like NMI to create a dashboard in Grafana.

When we use the OMI tool as an umbrella, and SiteScope attempts to allow that, the problem is that a technician can only do one alert from OMI. The integration doesn't work properly. We need to see it in both tools and we're unable to do that. Finally, SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL.

For additional features, I return to the dashboards. Normally Micro Focus has an integration tool, OPR, for the dashboards. It's not useful and it also needs a high source, at least 24 CPU, and at least 96 gigabyte of RAM. I doubt Micro Focus will develop SiteScope dashboards and other tool dashboards because they'll say they have another tool for it, but it's not a useful tool.

• Complexity in template editing 
• They should provide more templates for new vendor devices.

We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope. I think this would make it a true monitoring tool for the environment.

Even though the log system is reliable, the tool must have a database. It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository. It could even improve performance and the ability for generating cross-domain reporting for better governance.

We are evaluating AppDynamics as a potential solution. We want to understand how that compares to and may be better than SiteScope. So I don't know exactly at this time what can be improved, but that is why we are evaluating AppDynamics. We are taking the opportunity to compare the features in both of these products to see if SiteScope measures up to other products in the category.  

At this point in the comparison, I think what I would say AppDynamics does provide one capability that I think SiteScope does not. This is the ability to track a business transaction from the client through all the layers spanning the architecture. So there is more continuity in tracking from the user to the webserver to the database. This might be something that they could consider adding to SiteScope.  

So what I would like to see included most in the next release of SiteScope is the ability to do better transaction tracking. The other thing I would like to see is SiteScope should provide capabilities to display some graphs of information summaries. For example, say if I want to look at the resource utilization of a system or part of a system over a period of time, it would be nice to be able to get a quick preview of that provided in a graph to get a quick idea without a lot of other evaluation.  

Licensing is a little steep. 

SiS, the abbreviated acronym for the tool, used to be owned by another company. You could purchase the product with unlimited monitors for $2500. Since HP's acquisition of the product, licensing is done on a points-per-monitor basis. Each individual monitor costs x number of points, an HP sales rep has those exact numbers, which change, seemingly., at whim! :-) You just get an error that you cannot add more monitors without additional licensing! With OOTB you get a few, not enough though to monitor any numbers in a enterprise. And, with literally hundreds of nodes and application monitors, database, web, etc. available, costs can get steep!

Monitor mobile health status too.