OpenText Real User Monitoring Reviews

Name: OpenText Real User Monitoring
Brand: OpenText
Rating: 3 (10 reviews)

3.2 out of 5

10 reviews
54% willing to recommend

1,933 followers

What is OpenText Real User Monitoring?

Real User Monitoring (RUM) an End user monitoring that gives you visibility into user behavior for fast, targeted problem resolution. It monitors the performance and availability of business-critical application services for all users at all locations all the time. It automatically discovers underlying infrastructure and classifies user actions - giving you instant visibility into session and whole service health over web, cloud, and mobile user experience. It allows you to trace user experience across tiers, capture live sessions, see where customers clicked, measure response times, and see pages that caused problems. And you can easily capture and replay user sessions to create test scripts that reflect real user behavior. All this data gives you new ability to analyze which application transactions your users are performing and what application response they are experiencing. RUM currently supports over 20 application protocols and applications such as SAP, Citrix, and native mobile application monitoring on Android.

Get the OpenText Real User Monitoring Buyer's Guide and find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Real User Monitoring, Dynatrace, Datadog and more!

OpenText Real User Monitoring is the #53 ranked solution in APM tools. PeerSpot users give OpenText Real User Monitoring an average rating of 6.4 out of 10. OpenText Real User Monitoring is most commonly compared to Dynatrace: OpenText Real User Monitoring vs Dynatrace. OpenText Real User Monitoring is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 66% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a financial services firm, accounting for 30% of all views.

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Real User Monitoring

October 2024

Get the report

Helped 814,649 peers since 2012

Featured reviews

Aphiwat Leetavorn.

CTO at Marco Technology

It traps and analyzes end-user traffic going to the server. The agent acts as a trap before sending it to the server, analyzing it, and collating it with the internal monitoring data. This is external monitoring, not front-end monitoring. It's more like back-end monitoring, analyzing results with…

Read full review

HiteshKumar

Technologies Private Limited logo Vigility Technologies Private Limited at Vigility technology Pvt Ltd

The solution is used for data center monitoring, real-time monitoring, and automation With the solution, you can easily access any issues in your infrastructure. If an incident occurs and a ticket is moved to your particular team, you can easily resolve the incident. The solution's technical…

Read full review

BoykoVasilev

IT Specialist at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees

This solution needs to be more lightweight. It requires that you purchase a Microsoft or Oracle database, which adds extra costs. This product still uses Java, which has been removed from most of the browsers and it requires an additional install step for the client. You need to purchase a lot of extra products from Micro Focus because the integration with them is required before you get a final, working solution. It is an old design that has not changed in the past ten years, other than the name of it. It takes 20 to 30 minutes to start the application. When we want to monitor our encrypted traffic, this product doesn't work because our cipher is not supported. Because RUM is based on port sniffing, it means that you need to configure a port on the network or switch. This works fine in an on-premises deployment, but we are moving to the cloud and user monitoring is done differently.

Read full review

OpenText Real User Monitoring mindshare

As of November 2024, the mindshare of OpenText Real User Monitoring in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category stands at 0.2%, down from 0.3% compared to the previous year, according to calculations based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

Key learnings from peers

Valuable Features

Key features of OpenText Real User Monitoring include application performance tracking, effective reporting, and proactive issue resolution. Technical support is regarded as competent. Easy implementation enhances appeal. Website and mobile app monitoring are notable. Real User Monitoring aids in identifying and addressing problems before escalation, providing a live session of users' actions for analysis. Users value the long-term reliability and comprehensive management of traffic and thresholds.

"With the solution, you can easily access any issues in your infrastructure."
"Real User Monitoring tools help proactively identify problems before they become critical by monitoring thresholds. There is a threshold and an SOA threshold."
"Real User Monitor has improved our productivity."

Room for Improvement

OpenText Real User Monitoring needs a complete interface redesign, improved support for non-Windows environments, and a more lightweight architecture. Investments in R&D and updates to its aging design are necessary. Integration issues, slow application startup, and inadequate protocol support create further complications. The outdated traffic mirroring approach and insufficient monitoring capabilities for certain traffic types reduce its effectiveness. Enhancing compatibility and ease of use can significantly improve user satisfaction.

"The solution's technical support presents a lot of issues with too many delays."
"The product needs more R&D to make it easier and more compatible with other software."
"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."

ROI

Users reported that OpenText Real User Monitoring significantly improved their application performance and user experience. IT teams could diagnose issues quickly, reducing downtime and enhancing productivity. Cost savings were observed due to fewer system outages. Stakeholders appreciated the detailed insights and metrics, which facilitated better decision-making. Additionally, meeting user expectations and maintaining service quality became more manageable, driving higher satisfaction rates and enhanced ROI for their organizations.

Pricing

The price for OpenText Real User Monitoring is approximately €30,000 ($35,500 USD) for the enterprise edition, with a three-year term and annual support costs. Users find the pricing reasonable compared to other vendors like Cisco and AppDynamics, although it's rated medium at five out of ten. Since it's bundled with a larger product, comparisons to solutions like Dynatrace can be challenging.

"Compared to other tools, OpenText Real User Monitoring is an expensive solution."
"Not expensive."
"If I compare with other vendors, other vendors are more expensive"

Popular Use Cases

OpenText Real User Monitoring is used for transaction and synthetic transaction monitoring, application performance monitoring, and user experience analysis. It helps organizations monitor services, capture problems from a user perspective, calculate business level agreements, and analyze end-user traffic with end-to-end monitoring. It is primarily implemented for users' and applications' performance monitoring within the business services environment.

Service and Support

Technical support for OpenText Real User Monitoring receives mixed feedback. Some find it quite good and responsive, including a critical response team for immediate needs. Others feel they focus more on issue resolution than product improvement. There are mentions of high turnover and new engineers needing time to develop expertise. While some say support is useful and friendly, others see room for design changes to better address problems.

Deployment

Organizations experienced mixed results with OpenText Real User Monitoring's initial setup. Some found it straightforward and user-friendly, while others faced significant challenges, bugs, and complexity. The deployment duration varied based on the monitoring scope, ranging from a few hours to over a year. Continuous refinement and support were often necessary, with larger teams required for maintaining different components. For some, the setup process involved clear, defined steps, but still required ensuring compatibility and performing adjustments.

Scalability

OpenText Real User Monitoring can scale but requires proportional infrastructure investment. It may need multiple servers for multiple RUM engines and lacks load balancing. Large enterprises and varied customers use it. Its ease of scaling is noted, with organizations monitoring thousands of transactions. Increased usage can be achieved but may need more hardware. While some face no restrictions, others suggest room for improvement as traffic demands grow. Some rate its scalability seven out of ten.

Stability

Users found OpenText Real User Monitoring to be generally stable. Many mentioned it is stable when compatibility is full or after fixes. Some noted stability issues due to Java components causing errors. Stability improves post-maintenance. Users rated stability six out of ten if customization required. Many praised its reliability after setup.

These insights are based on the in-depth reviews provided by peers to help you make a better buying decision.

Download our OpenText Real User Monitoring Buyer's Guide for additional reliable information.