We performed a comparison between Datadog and OpenText Real User Monitoring 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 feature I have found most valuable is when I can reuse existing monitors and alerts for new dashboards."
"Its logs are most valuable."
"We enjoy the multistep API tests."
"Its integration is most valuable because you can integrate it with various service providers such as AWS, .Net, etc."
"We integrate our application logs. It is great to be able to tie our metrics and our traces together."
"I have found error reporting and log centralization the most valuable features. Overall, Datadog provides a full package solution."
"The most valuable feature is the dashboards that are provided out of the box, as well as ones we were able to configure."
"The integration into AWS is key as well as our software is currently bound to AWS."
"The reporting feature is good for us."
"Very easy to implement."
"Real User Monitor has improved our productivity."
"The most valuable feature is application performance monitoring."
"The most useful feature of this solution is tracking. When the application's traffic has been monitored it is taken from that particular application and analyzed. It is then given a live session of that particular user. For example, if you are using your bank application to do some kind of transaction, everything that you do can be tracked by that application."
"The technical support is good at resolving issues."
"The Real User Monitor, with its transaction and synthetic transaction monitoring, is the typical classic in APM cases when the customer would like to do transaction monitoring. Micro Focus scores better where the underlying infrastructure management is also covered by Micro Focus tools."
"The correlation between the logs and the metrics needs improvement as most cases, we might use another logging tool (that is cheaper in cost) which we then have to link together."
"Lately, chat support has a longer waiting time."
"Datadog lacks a deeper application-level insight. Their competitors had eclipsed them in offering ET functionality that was important to us. That's why we stopped using it and switched to New Relic. Datadog's price is also high."
"One area where I was really looking for improvement was the CSPM product line. I had really wanted to have team-level visibility for findings, since the team managing the resources has much more context and ability to resolve the issue, as the service owner. However, this has been added to the announcement in a recent keynote."
"It can have a more modernized pricing mechanism. We're actually working with them to figure out how to become more modular and have a better and more modernized pricing mechanism. The issue with Datadog is that you have to buy the whole suite of different products, and you kind of get stuck in the old utilization of 40% of their suite. Most organizations today break down between application development, networking, and security. Therefore, there should be a way to break down different modules into just app dev, infosec, networking, etc. Customers have various needs across their business lines, and sometimes, they're just not willing to have tools that they're not using 100%. AppDynamics is probably a little bit better in terms of being modular."
"Alerting timing should be improved to be more fine-tuned and exact."
"Datadog does not have the feature where you can monitor external websites or check the SSL secure for websites."
"Datadog has a lot of documentation, but a lot of that documentation assumes you know how the service works, which can lead to confusion."
"This technology is considered to be older."
"Real User Monitor needs to cover more protocols to provide more in-depth information. It could also be better at monitoring voice-related traffic. There is currently no visibility in that channel."
"One area to improve is the user interface, of course. The second one is their R&D has virtually stopped building a product roadmap."
"Everybody is moving away from traffic and installing agents on the application to do the job, but Micro Focus is using traditional ways to collect the traffic. They should change their architecture completely."
"When we want to monitor our encrypted traffic, this product doesn't work because our cipher is not supported."
"Some issues with login errors."
"We would like to see support for non-Windows environments."
More OpenText Real User Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
Datadog is ranked 1st in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 137 reviews while OpenText Real User Monitoring is ranked 46th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 8 reviews. Datadog is rated 8.6, while OpenText Real User Monitoring is rated 6.2. The top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Real User Monitoring writes "The reports and metrics we collect help us to improve our services". Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, Azure Monitor, New Relic, AWS X-Ray and Elastic Observability, whereas OpenText Real User Monitoring is most compared with AppDynamics, VMware Aria Operations for Applications, Dynatrace and Honeycomb.io. See our Datadog vs. OpenText Real User Monitoring 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.