We performed a comparison between OpenText SiteScope and SCOM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Datadog, Dynatrace, New Relic and others in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability."VM monitoring is pretty good showing good visualizations of how VMs are operating within the context of all the VMs running on the same hypervisor."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."
"The Monitor Templates functionality allowed us to spin up monitoring with .csv files pretty easily."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"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 solution is scalable. If you want to monitor more you have to buy more licenses, but you can add on. We don't plan to increase usage."
"It discovers the components automatically, which is a fantastic thing. The discovery works in an automatic way, and it has a dynamic way of discovering the components, assets, and applications. It doesn't require any manual intervention."
"The most valuable features in SCOM are Azure monitoring and integration with Azure Monitor for monitoring Azure-hosted servers from SCOM on-premises."
"I like some of their newer features, such as maintenance schedules, because SCOM records SLA and SLO time."
"The monitoring features are the most valuable. We have seen a major benefit from that so far."
"Availability monitoring is the feature I have found most valuable, as well as the capacity and ability to send notifications."
"The solution has improved our overrides and the ability to start services if they're stopped."
"The solution's reporting engine has given me detailed information on which applications or services I've either failed or about to fail in terms of the predictive makeup on Azure cloud."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"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 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."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
"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."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"It could use some system enhancements, such as better dashboards."
"We didn't know the solution enough, and therefore, it took a while to set everything up correctly. There was a learning curve."
"The interface is a little bit cumbersome and certain actions could be simplified."
"Of course, price is always an issue with Microsoft and could be improved."
"There are some negative points about this product. Sometimes, the capabilities of the software don't appear, and you can't directly see the results. You have to wait for a long period to refresh the policy to push it to the software or other patches."
"Direct integration with third-party tools, like ticketing systems, is lacking but would be beneficial."
"The GI is difficult to work with and the reporting servers are also difficult."
"Stability and some performance issues exist and they need improvement."
OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews while SCOM is ranked 3rd in Event Monitoring with 78 reviews. OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6, while SCOM is rated 7.8. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SCOM writes "Has a good reporting engine, but its monitoring of the cloud-based environment could be improved". OpenText SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus, Splunk Enterprise Security and Grafana, whereas SCOM is most compared with Dynatrace, Zabbix, Datadog and Nagios XI.
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.