Apica vs OpenText SiteScope comparison

Apica and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category. Apica is ranked #17 with an average rating of 7.7, while OpenText is ranked #21 with an average rating of 8.0. Apica holds a 0.3% mindshare in APM, compared to OpenText’s 0.5% mindshare. Additionally, 81% of Apica users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 92% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Apica

Read 11 Apica reviews

645 Views
359 Comparison Views

81% willing to recommend

OpenText SiteScope

Read 25 OpenText SiteScope reviews

1,554 Views
754 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

Apica

OpenText SiteScope

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

OpenText SiteScope and Apica are both robust IT monitoring solutions tailored for enterprise-level environments. Apica seems to have the upper hand in terms of overall features and ease of use, while OpenText SiteScope is praised for its customization options and integration capabilities.

What features are offered by OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Apica?

OpenText SiteScope offers scalability, flexibility, and extensive monitoring templates. It also integrates well with other Micro Focus tools. Apica provides comprehensive end-to-end monitoring capabilities, rich real-time dashboards, and detailed synthetic monitoring. It stands out with its advanced analytics and user-friendly experience.

What areas of improvement can be found in OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Apica?

OpenText SiteScope could improve by modernizing its interface and enhancing performance metrics granularity. Users also suggest refining its user interface. Apica could benefit from better documentation and streamlining some configuration processes. Users also recommend further usability enhancements.

How is the ease of deployment and customer service of OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Apica?

OpenText SiteScope users report a more complex deployment process but robust customer support. Apica users find the deployment relatively straightforward. They also commend the proactive customer service. Apica generally has an advantage in deployment simplicity, while both have strong customer service acknowledgment.

What setup costs and ROI can be seen with OpenText SiteScope in comparison to Apica?

OpenText SiteScope is often seen as having higher initial setup costs, delivering strong ROI through deep integration and broad functionality. Apica provides solid ROI, with users noting it is worth the investment due to its comprehensive features despite sometimes higher pricing. Apica seems favorable in balancing cost with the value delivered, while OpenText SiteScope is noted for long-term returns post-setup investment.

To learn more, read our detailed Apica vs. OpenText SiteScope Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Apica vs. OpenText SiteScope

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 848,253 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Apica

Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

17th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Log Management (17th), IT Operations Analytics (5th), Observability Pipeline Software (2nd)

OpenText SiteScope

Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

21st

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Apica is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText SiteScope is 0.5%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

Featured Reviews

Noorul Mustafa Khan

Senior Associate Vice President at Wells Fargo

Validates content and perform login functionalities on front-end applications

First of all, it will depend on the type of application. If it's a web application, I would recommend implementing it in your lower environment first and checking for functionality. If you are satisfied, then push it to the higher environments. Apica has detected server-related issues and various web application-related issues promptly, alerting us in a timely manner. This allowed us to implement automation within our processes, ensuring comprehensive performance monitoring from failure detection to recovery. It was pretty easy to learn. I attended a couple of sessions with team members. They provided knowledge transfer, which took about a week. After that, I was able to onboard the company. However, for minor issues, I would still contact them. If you're a quick learner, it could take just a couple of weeks to get the hang of it. You can integrate Apica architect into your system because they provide APIs. With these APIs, you can utilize Apica where and when it's needed. For instance, you can create your own microservices to automate tasks or integrate it with tools like Postman. This flexibility allows you to embed Apica into various automation processes or any other functionalities you require. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Read full review

Ahmed Salman

Performance & Monitoring Supervisor at Saudi Telecom Company

Instead of executing jobs multiple times, I can configure it once, schedule, and apply it on multiple servers in sequence

The system is really powerful; instead of executing jobs multiple times, I can configure it once, schedule, and apply it on multiple servers in sequence. It allows me to create scripts and automate several processes, making tasks simpler and more efficient. By using templates for systems or databases, I can monitor various needs easily, which saves time and increases productivity.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"Our application SREs do script checks in such a way that closely mimic our customers' actions using the platform. Because there are so many different ways and options to be able to configure checks to closely mirror your applications' capabilities, it provides a lot of optionality for teams to create the right type of check that can notify when there are any issues. At the end of the day, we want our monitoring tools to be able to catch any outage before our customers do. This is where Apica Synthetic does a great job."

"There are several features that are really good. The first one is the flexibility and the advanced configuration that Apica offers when it comes to configuring synthetic checks. It provides the ability to customize how the check should be performed and it is very flexible in the number of synthetic locations that it can use. It allows us to run scripts from different locations all over the world, and they have a really good number of these locations."

"It uses a basic scripting language, which is easy to learn and customize as needed. Compared to LoadRunner, I found writing and customizing code much easier in Apica."

"It helps with releases because we monitor them in staging. We can tell if something is critically wrong before it gets into production, e.g., if it was load related or function related and also what was different in the dev stage. It then alerts us straightaway inside of our production monitors once it has been released. Therefore, it has improved how we run our systems since we monitor multiple environments."

"I like the transcript download feature. And with UI scripting, it's helpful that Apica handles a lot of the backend work automatically. I don't have to tag everything manually, though I can tag elements later if needed. It's really good at recording the steps."

"From our standpoint, there are a number of valuable features. The WebHooks are obviously really great. The alert framework is really good and then the reporting and visualizations that you get from the dashboards is good. Those three areas are primarily what my team's focused on in terms of usage from day to day."

"As always, within the IT industry, everybody's always looking to upgrade and update everything else like that. Apica has been one of those things but it's really hard to replace because it offers us the unique capability to see what the customer is seeing. A lot of other ones can do Selenium script and things like that, but there's a lot in Apica that we use right now. We utilize a lot of the scenario options in Apica right now, and there's a lot of other ones that do parts of it, but it doesn't do everything that Apica does."

"Anyone can understand the solution easily because it doesn't require a specific scripted language."

More Apica pros

"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."

"The tool has capabilities other than managing web-based applications, like URL Monitor and EPI Script. It is also easy to use the tool."

"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."

"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."

"Instead of executing jobs multiple times, I can configure it once, schedule, and apply it on multiple servers in sequence. It allows me to create scripts and automate several processes, making tasks simpler and more efficient."

"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."

"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."

"The Monitor Templates functionality allowed us to spin up monitoring with .csv files pretty easily."

More OpenText SiteScope pros

Cons

"The having to install an application on your desktop to utilize something like ZebraTester is a little cumbersome. It would be nice to see that become a web-based application. Having the documentation a little more accessible, and easier to digest by people who are just learning how to use the framework, especially when it comes to more complex or more edge-based cases would be really helpful to have."

"Learning the tool has always been a little difficult from a scripting perspective because the framework is proprietary and unique. Once we became used to what it does and how to perform it, then it became easier for my team and me. I would like to see some of the testing steps be part of a more well-known language, like Java or Python. That would be a big improvement."

"Apica cannot perform endurance or scale-up tests independently."

"The tool does not provide automatic correlation features."

"Apica was a relatively new tool when I started using it. Although Apica had good documentation, it still felt less developed or advanced than a tool like LoadRunner."

"Alerting needs improvement. It's a little noisy. It needs some better options. Currently, they have an issue, when you set up a synthetic monitor, you can set up where it's monitoring from, a data center that Apica owns."

"We have been focused on reducing polling times for synthetic checks. We have gone from 10 minutes down to five minutes for a pretty broad swath, but there is some appetite to reduce that further, which could be an improvement."

"Apica should add more features and integrations with different tools and certain ticketing systems, like ServiceNow."

More Apica cons

"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."

"We have four or five data centers around North America where we have it deployed into a single or a two-server primary backup type of deployment. All those are made available under a single GUI provided by Micro Focus that allows you to put them all together. A room for improvement would be an appliance or a server that would manage all of our other servers so that I don't have to remember to log on to all different servers and data centers. I could manage them from a single location."

"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."

"They should provide more templates for new vendor devices."

"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."

"Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring."

"Sometimes in a huge environment, I think the documentation does not provide the required calculations so you can't know what the required set up should be. You need to test."

"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."

More OpenText SiteScope cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool is completely free and open source. I've been using it for about two and a half years and installed it on both my personal and client machines without needing a license. All features are available for use without any hidden fees."

"The pricing and licensing are very reasonable. At the end of the day, you are using their technology/software and getting X amount of checks for a very decent value. As for discounts, they try to meet your budgets as much as they can. For example, if you need 100 checks and you have X amount of budget for it, then they will try and get down to that price. Costing-wise, it is a reasonably cost product. They will always try and come down to your price if you need them to come down to it by knocking off certain areas."

"License management is another area that Apica could do better. We have already had these conversations with our account teams. This is something that they are looking at largely improving in upcoming releases. I believe that this is already on their roadmap."

"Another main difference between Apica and the other products was the cost. We really thought that the balance in Apica between the features and costs was the best among all the products on which we did a PoC."

"I am sure that Apica's price will be lower than LoadRunner."

"The solution's pricing is not cheap, but it is in the midrange."

"I know Apica is an expensive solution, but it is worth the money for the service it provides."

"The pricing is very reasonable, but it is not cheap."

More Apica pricing and cost advice

"Licensing is a little steep."

"SiteScope licensing can be node based-or monitor-based. I would recommend for node-based licensing."

"I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten on a scale where one is cheap and ten is expensive."

"Depending on your requirements, there are two licensing models available. A simple point model, or an endpoint model."

"You have to pay for their "solution templates". Other tools do not charge you for knowledge-based monitoring bundles."

"The pricing or licensing cost for Micro Focus SiteScope is often bundled with other things, so the cost for each individual would be difficult to calculate. Pricing could be $2,000,000 a year. My company pays for technical support because it's part of the contract with Micro Focus SiteScope. You buy the licenses, but you're also paying for the support. With Nagios, it's much more bare-bones as far as paying for licenses and the software itself, and my company didn't have to use as much Nagios support yet in one or two years because there weren't too many problems using Nagios, and it's much more cost-effective, so that's one of the reasons why my company is migrating to Nagios from Micro Focus SiteScope."

"The product's pricing should be lower since there are many open-source products that can do the same job with better user interfaces. The tool's pricing is yearly and you need to pay for support."

"It is expensive. I don't like its licensing. I don't like anything where you have to license it by individual licenses. I'm not a fan of that, but that's just me."

More OpenText SiteScope pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

34%

Computer Software Company

11%

Media Company

Insurance Company

Financial Services Firm

34%

Manufacturing Company

18%

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Apica Synthetic?

The GUI is powerful and doesn't require scripting or regular expressions. It has a vast finder for correlation, which is easier than other tools like JMeter and LoadRunner. It's also easy to integr...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apica Synthetic?

I know Apica is an expensive solution, but it is worth the money for the service it provides.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Apica Synthetic?

Apica cannot perform endurance or scale-up tests independently. It requires other tools like ALM. When editing scripts, only one can be accessed at a time, risking changes affecting other folders. ...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?

The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?

The licensing scheme for Micro Focus tools is reasonable, and more affordable. It's seen as medium or de-receivable.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?

While working with OpenText, I noticed sometimes teams refuse intervention due to compliance issues. Overcoming control restrictions for different applications could be improved.

See all answers

Comparisons

Dynatrace vs Apica

Compared 22% of the time

Datadog vs Apica

Compared 17% of the time

Cribl vs Apica

Compared 16% of the time

AlertSite vs Apica

Compared 12% of the time

Grafana vs Apica

Compared 12% of the time

More Apica Competitors

Dynatrace vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 14% of the time

Grafana vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 13% of the time

Splunk AppDynamics vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 13% of the time

Prometheus Group vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 12% of the time

OmniPeek vs OpenText SiteScope

Compared 11% of the time

More OpenText SiteScope Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Apica

April 2025

Download Apica product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText SiteScope

March 2025

Download OpenText SiteScope product report

Also Known As

Apica LoadTest, Apica Synthetic

Micro Focus SiteScope, HPE SiteScope, SiteScope

Overview

Apica offers a unified platform to remove complexity and cost associated with data management. You collect, control, store, and observe your data and can quickly identify and resolve performance issues before they impact the end-user. Apica Ascent swiftly analyzes telemetry data in real-time, enabling prompt issue resolution, while automated root cause analysis, powered by machine learning, streamlines troubleshooting in complex distributed systems. The platform simplifies data collection by automating and managing agents through the platform’s Fleet product. Its Flow product simplifies and optimizes pipeline control with AI and ML to help you easily understand complex workflows. Its Store component allows you to never run out of storage space while you index and store machine data centrally on one platform and reduce costs, and remediate faster. Observe offers modern observability data management, helping you with MELT data, effortless dashboarding, and seamless integration of synthetic and real data.

Experience the Apica Ascent Platform

Apica

OpenText SiteScope is an agentless monitoring program that tracks the availability and performance of distributed IT infrastructures such as servers, network devices and services, applications and application components, virtualization software, operating systems, and other IT enterprise components.

OpenText SiteScope is an autonomous hybrid IT monitoring system that can monitor more than 100 different types of IT components in real time, thanks to a lightweight and highly customizable remote access architecture.

With OpenText SiteScope, IT teams can get the data they need to keep on top of problems and eliminate bottlenecks before they become major concerns.

OpenText SiteScope can reduce total cost of ownership (TCO) by utilizing agentless technology, which eliminates the need to install and monitor agents on each box. Manual activities can be automated, and teams can save time and effort by using pre-packaged solution templates.

OpenText SiteScope Features

OpenText SiteScope has many valuable key features. Some of the most useful ones include:

Broad functionality built on expertise: OpenText SiteScope's architecture is scalable and supports a broad range of functions, including data collecting, alerting, event management, and reporting. Data is collected via remote access, which eliminates the need for agents to be deployed and maintained on monitored nodes. OpenText SiteScope connects to systems as a remote user via the central server, which supports JMX, SNMP, HTTP, SSH, NetBIOS, and WMI.

Monitors legacy and modern environments: OpenText SiteScope comes with more than 100 built-in monitors that track things like utilization, response time, use, and resource availability.
- Cloud: You can monitor virtual servers and applications on Amazon Web Services (AWS). AWS-hosted applications can provide data to Amazon CloudWatch, which can be used for auto-scaling, reporting, and alerting.
- Virtualization: OpenText SiteScope supports VMware, Microsoft, Citrix, and Oracle/Sun virtualization technologies. Monitor Docker clusters, nodes, containers, and workloads.

Flexibility with configuration: By adding or deleting specific monitors, you can adapt to dynamic changes in data center configuration.

Templates for solutions: The template database is based on best practices for monitoring complex application settings with the least amount of time and effort. The templates include built-in domain experience of specialized monitors, default metrics and thresholds, proactive testing, and best practices for a given application or monitoring component.

Notifications, alerts, and reports: Email, SNMP traps, HTTP post, and database alerts are all supported. Administrators receive alerts based on defined thresholds and schedules.

Flexibility in user management: Using LDAP or an internal management solution, define group-level permissions, construct user roles, and assign security groups depending on role. Extensive WS (Web Service)-based API that automates numerous management situations without the need for the SiteScope UI.

Integrations with SiteScope: OpenText SiteScope not only offers a number of benefits on its own, but it can also be linked with a number of OpenText and third-party solutions, giving teams the ability to properly integrate their IT operations center.

OpenText

Sample Customers

HBO, JPMC, Morgan Stanley, Xander, EA Sports, Volvo

Vodafone Ireland, Kuveyt Turk Participation Bank

Buyer's Guide

Apica vs. OpenText SiteScope

April 2025

Free Report: Apica vs. OpenText SiteScope

Find out what your peers are saying about Apica vs. OpenText SiteScope and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Apica 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.