We performed a comparison between AppDynamics 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."AppDynamics makes it much easier for us to detect problems or issues before they become problems. We have alerting on all of our business transactions."
"The solution helps us save a lot of time on certain tasks."
"The most valuable features of AppDynamics is the scalability and monitoring."
"Applications: This provides us insight into how our applications are performing within our environments and affords us the ability to identify opportunities and make changes to code / environment to effect positive performance lift."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to take a report, and in particular, a visual, and link it to actual application performance and then the consequences. This means you can show how an incident or action has an effect on the business."
"That visual representation’s been really good, also the overhead that AppDynamics creates is quite small. We've tried Dynatrace in the past. Some of the applications didn't work as well with Dynatrace."
"We're a large organization, so we appreciate AppDynamics' wide coverage. It may not work in all areas, but it has broad coverage. We can use the same dataset for different use case aspects. That is the beauty of AppDynamics. You can coordinate APM, EUM, and infrastructure through one dataset."
"The most valuable feature is the live reporting on the current health\performance of our application"
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"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 product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"It could be a little more flexible in configuration on the back end."
"The GUI can be overwhelming at first to a novice Dev or Ops support person, and the possible root causes of an issue do not bubble up to the first screen you see."
"AppDynamics is agent-based, so some customers are reluctant to install the agents in all their production environments. It would be helpful if they had an agentless version. It covers applications on the server, but the solution is weak on the network side. The agent is not deployed on the network components, so it cannot provide complete information about issues on the network layer."
"There could log management features included in the product."
"The agent deployment could be simplified by, for example, adding a GUI."
"There are many KPIs that are not available in AppDynamics."
"I would like them to change their business model for scalability to accommodate growing companies. The business model should be more flexible."
"It would help to maybe have a more graphical interface and more user-friendly graphics."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
"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."
"Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"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."
"They should provide more templates for new vendor devices."
AppDynamics is ranked 5th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 154 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. AppDynamics is rated 8.2, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of AppDynamics writes "Very good real-time monitoring capabilities, deep problem diagnosis, and transaction mapping". 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". AppDynamics is most compared with Dynatrace, Elastic Observability, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, Prometheus, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic. See our AppDynamics 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.