Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Real User Monitoring vs Splunk AppDynamics comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 6, 2025

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

OpenText Real User Monitoring
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
43rd
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Splunk AppDynamics
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
245
Ranking in other categories
IT Infrastructure Monitoring (4th), IT Operations Analytics (2nd), Mobile APM (2nd), Container Monitoring (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of OpenText Real User Monitoring is 0.2%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Splunk AppDynamics is 4.8%, down from 6.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

Aphiwat Leetavorn. - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers back-end monitoring, so it can analyze user experience but when customers change the software or version, this tool is quite sensitive
Real User Monitoring tools help proactively identify problems before they become critical by monitoring thresholds. There is a threshold and an SOA threshold. For example, it starts to go yellow, and if it becomes red, the system will crash. When it starts to become yellow (Threshold Approaching), we have to resolve it. This is the same case where we'll know what happened before it's too late. So we can make an early decision to prevent it, maybe by kicking some users off the system before it crashes.
Muhammad Zeeshan Siddiqui - PeerSpot reviewer
Dynamic mapping enhances workflows that are user-friendly
One aspect that requires improvement is the agent. Without an agent, gathering sufficient information on applications is challenging. Additionally, the agent sometimes creates performance issues in production environments. If AppDynamics could develop a means to monitor without an agent, it could significantly improve application performance and reduce potential problems. Moving to an agentless solution, like what some competitors are doing, would be beneficial.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"Real User Monitoring tools help proactively identify problems before they become critical by monitoring thresholds. There is a threshold and an SOA threshold."
"With the solution, you can easily access any issues in your infrastructure."
"It is a good product."
"It offers near-real-time analytics, which is helpful."
"Very easy to implement."
"Real User Monitor has improved our productivity."
"The most valuable feature is application performance monitoring."
"AppDynamics provides us with detailed information about the performance of the underlying infrastructure, including servers, databases, and external services."
"It has improved our organization with its ability to catch issues quickly and fix them."
"Provides monitoring more around business processes versus just servers, applications, etc. E.g., with complex systems, where a business process passes across multiple applications, the business needs us to monitor the heath of the process, not just a segment of the application."
"I like how the AppDynamics dashboard portrays the information flows. When a task is executed, various flows between different applications and databases happen in the background. The dashboard is intuitive and helps visualize the connections, the directions of the flow, and the information related to these specific sessions."
"The most valuable feature in AppDynamics is the identifying of the slow responses. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"The release management capabilities are great."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I don't see any problems in the solution...The solution's technical support was good."
"AppDynamics Database Monitoring's most valuable feature is the ability of the out-of-the-box to update the information, provide various metrics, and possibly include custom metrics."
 

Cons

"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."
"Customer support needs to improve by bringing in more people who are knowledgeable about the tool, as there are very few left."
"The solution's technical support presents a lot of issues with too many delays."
"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."
"The product needs more R&D to make it easier and more compatible with other software."
"We would like to see support for non-Windows environments."
"Some issues with login errors."
"AppDynamics Server Monitoring has room for improvement in terms of pricing. If the price could be cheaper, it would be great for both the customer and the integrator. What I'd like to see in the next release of AppDynamics Server Monitoring is a better dashboard for the customer. The dashboard should be more interactive."
"The product’s dashboard could be more easy to implement."
"This product has an issue with initial lag upon opening that we would like to see improved."
"AppDynamics Database Monitoring would be improved with more support for microservices architecture."
"It could be a little more flexible in configuration on the back end."
"The solution's pricing could be improved and made more competitive."
"Additional support for NextGen mobile platforms also needs to be high in the roadmap prioritizations"
"The Log Analytics feature is a bit complicated."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is approximately €30,000 ($35,500 USD) for the enterprise edition."
"Not expensive."
"If I compare with other vendors, other vendors are more expensive"
"Compared to other tools, OpenText Real User Monitoring is an expensive solution."
"AppDynamics Server Monitoring is a very expensive product, but if you negotiate well, you get value for money...My company used to make early payments toward the licensing costs of the solution, but now my company has opted for a different licensing model."
"There were no added costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The pricing needs to come down."
"If one is expensive and ten is low price, I rate the product price as seven out of ten."
"We have purchased a few licenses for AppDynamics Database Monitoring and the price is high."
"The product’s licencing policy is competitive. However, properly identify and size your needs to get the best rate."
"It would be better if there were more solutions incorporated into the base price. ​"
"The price of AppDynamics could be reduced in my region."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
842,767 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
28%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Government
8%
Real Estate/Law Firm
7%
Educational Organization
49%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Real User Monitor?
The diagnostics perspective, particularly in terms of the root cause analysis of failures, should be improved. There needs to be more development in this area, as the support and the number of peop...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Real User Monitor?
The use case is about user-level monitoring and the availability of a service for a user. It's about whether the service is available, its performance, and the type of errors a user is receiving, f...
What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus Real User Monitor?
I rate the solution as nine. It is a good product. Everyone should have it as it is essential today, but choose the vendor accordingly. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
Any advice about APM solutions?
There are many factors and we know little about your requirements (size of org, technology stack, management systems, the scope of implementation). Our goal was to consolidate APM and infra monitor...
APM tools for a Managed Service Provider - Dynatrace vs. AppDynamics vs. Aternity vs. Ruxit
Hi Avi! It's great to see your thorough approach to selecting an APM package for your MSP company. Considering your focus on SMBs and enterprises in Israel, Dynatrace seems like a solid choice with...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Real User Monitor, Micro Focus RUM, HPE RUM
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Avea, Maccabi Healthcare Services, TEB
Cisco, Sony, Nasdaq, Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Edmunds.com, Puma, Fox News, DirecTV, Pizza Hut, T-Systems, Cornell University, OpenTable, BITMARCK, Green Mountain Power, Care.com, Overstock, Paddy Power, eHarmony, Kraft, The Motley Fool, The Container Store, and more See more customers
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Real User Monitoring vs. Splunk AppDynamics and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
842,767 professionals have used our research since 2012.