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

OmniPeek vs OpenText SiteScope comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

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

OmniPeek
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
68th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Network Monitoring Software (71st)
OpenText SiteScope
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
22nd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of OmniPeek is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText SiteScope is 0.5%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

Kunwar Preet Singh Sodhi - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly, stable, and scalable
The solution's automation has room for improvement. I have observed that Wireshark is much more commonly used for automation than OmniPeek. This is because when scripts are involved, Wireshark provides a great deal of flexibility for automating the process of packet sniffing. In the case of OmniPeek, its capabilities are limited, which restricts its automation potential. However, it is already user-friendly and compatible with Microsoft, so if it were to become comparable to Wireshark, it could potentially dominate the market. I have seen many new versions of OmniPeek, but I have never seen an automation version. The price of OmniPeek can be improved. Many customers have chosen the solution due to its user-friendly nature, but the cost often prevents them from making a purchase. This means that they may opt for an open-source tool instead. We should look into making the pricing more competitive and consider offering customization options to increase its utility in automation. This could be a game-changer.
Ahmed Salman - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature of OmniPeek is the ability to assign custom color codes to the different packets easily."
"It's a solid piece of software. It's stable."
"The most valuable feature is OmniPeek is user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of OmniPeek was the ability it gave us to see the connection procedure."
"The most valuable features are the voice bot, which checks the quality of service for voice, and the expert view that gives me insight on what and where to troubleshoot."
"I believe the most crucial feature of OmniPeek search is the ability to sniff packets based on channel switching."
"Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics."
"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."
"There's no agent you need installed on the servers. In our environment, we have some servers out of our control so we cannot manage them. We use SiteScope to monitor the availability, the resources on the servers, etc. This allows us to do this job without installing agents so there's no need to take care of anything on the server."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
 

Cons

"I would like to see the tool work in an open environment the same as how it does in a closed environment."
"I would like to see the saving feature improved. We have had issues if you do not save your progress then you have to start from the beginning."
"I am not using OmniPeek for automation, we only do manual testing. Automation testing is tedious to do. The automation should be more user-friendly. I have exposed some APIs but the usage is not user-friendly."
"I don't see a clear roadmap in the future for improving this software."
"The solution's automation has room for improvement."
"Making it more clear on how to configure the filters, or really automating them, would be an improvement."
"While working with OpenText, I noticed sometimes teams refuse intervention due to compliance issues."
"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."
"Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring."
"They should provide more templates for new vendor devices."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
"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."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have only purchased the add-on once and have not paid for any subsequent versions as it was too costly for us."
"There are different types of licenses available."
"The pricing for this solution could be improved, as it is a very expensive product."
"Licensing is a little steep."
"When Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope has introduced approximately eight years ago and there was not very much competition making the price high. However, when comparing the price of Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope now to other tools, they should reduce the price. It is similar to a legacy tool at this point."
"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."
"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."
"Depending on your requirements, there are two licensing models available. A simple point model, or an endpoint model."
"I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten on a scale where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"You have to pay for their "solution templates". Other tools do not charge you for knowledge-based monitoring bundles."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Educational Organization
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Financial Services Firm
32%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?
The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring.
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.
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.
 

Also Known As

Savvius OmniPeek
Micro Focus SiteScope, HPE SiteScope, SiteScope
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Apcon, Aruba Networks, Avaya Inc., Cisco Systems, Ekahau, Gigamon Systems, HP, IBM, IXIA, Meru Networks, Napatech, NextComputing, Procera Networks, Qualcomm Atheros, Ralink Technology Corporation, Telchemy
Vodafone Ireland, Kuveyt Turk Participation Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about OmniPeek vs. OpenText SiteScope and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.