We performed a comparison between IBM Application Performance Management 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."It's easy to use."
"The initial setup was straightforward and took minimal effort."
"IBM Application Performance Management helped us increased our response time by 80% and cost 60% less."
"I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten."
"Because we have partnerships with other partners, I can share a bit about what I've noticed with IBM APM compared to other vendor solutions. Specifically, with IBM, the visibility into detailed process information is more tangible. On the OS level, APM displays all processes (or the top 10 processes) that are consuming CPU or resident memory. This is the most important thing that is not always available with other vendors."
"The most valuable feature is the breakdown that it provides, such as a description of the fields for a particular transaction."
"The transaction tracking feature from IBM is the most important feature for us. It is something that provides a terrific value for us and our clients. It has a lot of data sources and agents that are collectors. It is also stable."
"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"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."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"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 demo that was provided to us is not working very well. At times, there are errors."
"Technical support can be slow and needs improvement."
"With APM, we noticed that the agent can cause a lot of issues for the application, making the agent very unreliable. Many issues are happening, and we've had to discuss it with support to try and get a fix. It affects application availability, and sometimes actions fail because of the agent, degrading the performance of the application."
"Its web user interface is a little bit old in comparison to other solutions, such as New Relic, and it should be improved. Its scalability and technical support should also be improved. Currently, it is scalable, but only in a vertical way. They provide good technical support, but the initial steps for a new case can be improved to fasten the resolution process."
"They should focus on potentially enhancing the dashboard to make it more contemporary and adding some customization options. Furthermore, there might be room for improvement in the pricing policy."
"It's still missing some platforms. For example, if you look to applications itself, it is missing the interface."
"The stability is not great and should be better."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"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."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
"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."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"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."
More IBM Application Performance Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Application Performance Management is ranked 54th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 7 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. IBM Application Performance Management is rated 6.4, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM Application Performance Management writes "A multi-functional solution but has poor stability and performance-related issues". 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". IBM Application Performance Management is most compared with Instana Dynamic APM, Dynatrace, BMC Compuware Strobe, IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager and AppDynamics, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our IBM Application Performance Management 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.