OpenText SiteScope Reviews

Completely agentless solution, i.e., no agent has to be installed on any services for monitoring, hence avoiding any troubleshooting of agents.

SiteScope is a very flexible solution. The organization where I have implemented this solution allowed us to create custom monitoring to suite the environment. When coupled with OMi and Service Manager, it gives a 360 degree view of the service availability and performance SLAs.

SiteScope supports several virtualization technologies (private and public), like AWS, Hyper-V, VMware, etc., without the installation of any extra modules. The dashboard is tablet friendly and supported anywhere on iOS and Android.

It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates (policies). Most importantly, one can even use SiteScope for monitoring application transactions recorded using Vugen.

Finally, SiteScope is available as a container for Docker, which is parts away from the installation & length upgrade procedure.

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.

No. SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability.

No. SiteScope is highly scalable.

The support is good. Most importantly, the documentation is well-organized.

Depending on the requirement, we do recommend an agent-based solution. However, our overall first choice is SiteScope.

Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours.

I have implemented the solution myself for several organisations.

Not applicable.

SiteScope licensing can be node based-or monitor-based. I would recommend for node-based licensing.

For the first time users, it is recommended to make use of the experienced service provided for initial setup as they bring in experience and best practices.

No.

Go with a small install base (architecture) and gradually scale the solution.

The solution is primarily used for monitoring the servers, log files, and network devices.

It's a very good tool. It's user-friendly and it's very good at monitoring the infrastructure and the applications. It's very reliable in our environment and is helping the customers a lot in their monitoring of the application and the infrastructure.

The URL monitoring is excellent.

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.

I’ve been using the solution for five years.

The solution is very stable and reliable. The performance is good. there are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn’t crash or freeze.

The product can scale. It’s easy to expand if you need it to.

Technical support isn’t really that good. They are not technically capable. They are not helpful and they do not respond fast enough.

I don't know about the financial details surrounding the solution.

We’re partners and I am a consultant.

We’re using the latest version of the solution. We have around 200 people using the solution.

I’d recommend the solution to others. It's good, it's handy, it's easy to use, easy to configure, and the UI is great.

I’d rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the tool for database queries of specific thresholds. 

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. 

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

I have been working with the tool for 16 years. 

The solution is scalable. We have 50 users for the product. 

The support team supports us on basic issues. 

Neutral

The solution is easy to deploy. The tool's installation takes one hour to complete. You need just to configure it and then its plug and play. 

The product's pricing should be lower since there are many open-source products that can do the same job with better user interfaces. The tool's pricing is yearly and you need to pay for support. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. 

The main use case is basic infrastructure monitoring.

The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly.

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.

I have been using OpenText SiteScope for the last 15 years as a customer.

As for the stability, it is not good, not bad, something in the middle.

Our company has 15 people in the monitoring teams using OpenText SiteScope. 

The technical support team is not bad, but they are not very good with the first level of support. If we go to the second or third level grade, they are good.

We decided to use the product because they have many local partners and a very big sales team in Turkey. So, if there is a special need or requirement, they can help us easily. Additionally, we choose it because of the product’s pricing and the quality.

The initial setup is easy.

As a technical person, I have to ask you some technical questions but for generic people, I can suggest you can use OpenText SiteScope as it is very easy to manage.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

SiteScope is deployed on our network perimeter, and gives our operations teams an end user perspective of service availability. In the past, we'd get caught up in the old silo arguments. - the server looks fine, must be the network - the network looks fine, must be the applications etc. now with SiteScope, we can show the ops teams that there is a problem from the client perspective, and SiteScope can help determine root cause.

We use this product for monitoring client user experience. It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration. (NOTE: there is some missing functionality in API's). SiteScope has a lot of common API's out of the box, and this saves coding and maintaining these interfaces.

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.

We have some ongoing stability issues, specifically with SiteScope monitoring Windows servers via SSH, connecting to OpenSSH. There appears to be a compatibility issue with the SSH client deployed with SiteScope, that causes SiteScope to leave a stable connection open, and eventually SiteScope runs out of resources.

I only deal with HP support, so cannot compare to other vendors. I will say, over the past 12 - 18 months, I'm assuming due to HP's multiple splits and cost cutting, and their attempts to be a somewhat agile software provider, the overall quality of code and documentation has fallen.

The initial deployment was easy and quick. Ongoing management and hardening can present some challenges, but no show stoppers.

If you read the manual it is quite straightforward and enables you to get a quick ROI. Full hardening and automation can present some challenges, but none insurmountable.

Depending on your requirements, there are two licensing models available. A simple point model, or an endpoint model. Points are consumed simply by number of monitors deployed, so if you are wanting to do end user or application monitoring, you want this one. Endpoint licensing is best suited if you don't have a monitoring solution, and want SiteScope to be your agentless monitor. This way, you can deploy any number of monitors at the one server (e.g. CPU, memory, disc, event log) and if they all share the one remote connections, that's one license. As opposed to the point license, where each check (CPU, memory, disc) is a point.

As far as agentless monitoring goes, we did paper based reviews of other products, but never PoCs. SiteScope was chosen as we required a supported solution, and obtained entitlements and discounts due to our relationship with HP.

Most answer are found in the manual except for licensing, which you'll need to contact HP for. There is also the SiteScope Community edition I believe, which allows you to use the product for free to test it, but, from memory, limits you to 100 monitors I think.

Quicker time to meet the requirements of our customer. Because it's agentless as opposed to install and manage agents, we're just focused on what monitors we need and getting those deployed.

It's lightweight, and its ability to address numerous gaps in our other monitoring tools. It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box. Unlike other tools, you can write a script, run it, and integrate it. It's another monitoring tool and also gives the customers, on demand, the ability to pull or have the monitors go out and interrogate the system and validate the health of the system on demand.

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.

We have had no issues with the stability.

I have not personally used it so I can't speak to it. My own experiences with most of them is that they're OK. They're probably above or below average.

We went away from SiteScope many years ago and came back because of its simplicity. In the interim we switched to some of the IBM product lines. SiteScope is very intuitive and we've been able to accomplish what we want very quickly and efficiently compared to IBM.

From my perspective right now, it seems fairly simple or straightforward. Most of it we had up and running in a couple hours. We spent more time trying to fulfill our own requirements. The only gap or complexity we've added is around provisioning of monitors because we're driving it from an automated service catalog.

Don't over think it, it's a simple tool.

We are using the solution for many things.

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.

The interface is good. It's great for our technical team.

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.

The solution is normally stable, but in some environments, it's a bit more complex. For example, in our environment, we have more than 80 services published to the customers. Every day we have new items and new technologies. We have tests to retest, so sometimes when they move to new release, SiteScope itself will not work on it. You need to go to another release or wait for the R&D to provide you with a fix.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support is good, but not perfect.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's really simple.

I would recommend the product. I would suggest that those considering implementation of the solution need to study their environment first. You need to know what you're going to do before installing SiteScope. Everything needs to be prepared. Communication metrics should be ready. If your communication metrics are not ready, then SiteScope will not work with you. Once you do, however, it will be a piece of cake. Just install it and install the mutation.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

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

I have used Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope within the last 12 months.

The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good.

Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is a scalable solution. 

We have approximately 35 people using it.

The initial implementation of Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is easy. The process can take approximately 30 minutes with one person.

I have found the solution simple to maintain, it can be done with some person.

When Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope has introduced approximately eight years ago and there was not very much competition making the price high. However, when comparing the price of Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope now to other tools, they should reduce the price. It is similar to a legacy tool at this point.

I rate Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope five out of ten.