We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor 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 tools for logs and metrics are pretty good and easy to use."
"Azure Monitor is useful because of the useful application insights and telemetry, such as metrics and logs."
"The most valuable feature is that it's stable. It hasn't crossed any thresholds."
"The most valuable feature is the universality of their functionalities in all Azure services, including, software solutions."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Azure Monitor is a very easy-to-use product in the cloud environment."
"The solution very easily integrates with Azure services and in one click you can monitor your resource."
"What I like about Azure Monitor is that it performs well."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"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."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"The stability of the Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is good."
"The tool has capabilities other than managing web-based applications, like URL Monitor and EPI Script. It is also easy to use the tool."
"They need to work on a more hybrid deployment that will allow us to monitor local on-premise deployments and connect to different systems. I would like to see more integration."
"The length of latency is terrible and needs to be improved."
"In my opinion, they should improve the overall user experience, especially when it comes to indexing and searching collective logs."
"The default interface should be improved."
"The price could be lower but it is not a must."
"Azure Monitor could improve network performance monitoring and make it more advanced."
"As a younger product it still has room for feature improvement and enhancement."
"Although it's not always the case, the price can sometimes get expensive. This depends on a number of factors, such as how many services you are trying to integrate with Azure Monitor and how much storage they're consuming each month (for example, how large are the log files?)."
"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."
"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."
"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 could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"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."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"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."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 46 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 27th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.8, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "A powerful Kusto query language but the alerting mechanism needs improvement". 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". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Grafana, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics and Prometheus. See our Azure Monitor 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.