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."It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"It's easy to template standard monitoring configurations, and automate monitoring configuration."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"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."
"Simple deployment: The deployment uses protocols such as NetBios, SSH, WMI, SNMP, which means that any device with any of these protocols will be monitored."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"It's easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the extensibility, as there are really no limits as to what you can do with it."
"Availability monitoring is the feature I have found most valuable, as well as the capacity and ability to send notifications."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring of Windows and Linux servers."
"The ease of deployment, especially on Windows platforms, is valuable."
"SCOM has helped us to monitor all the VMs in our environment, especially the Windows servers."
"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."
"I enjoy its integration with the Microsoft Active Directory functions, which means users, computers, or other group policies can connect with Windows Active Directory."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"I would be very interested in having transaction traceability included in the product, to give us a better view of what is really going wrong in a particular method and action."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"All of the areas of reporting are very bad and need to be improved."
"The GI is difficult to work with and the reporting servers are also difficult."
"I would like to see them improve their network monitoring."
"It lacks certain details that other products do better, like granular access and better application monitoring."
"I would like more customized reports. People should have some customization option on the dashboards for whenever they put multiple lists into it. Beyond customizing the content, there should be the ability to customize the colors so that they can engage some priority and mark challenges separately."
"System Center just provided upgrade and update features for Windows clients, and Windows systems, and did not support Linux, Android, or iOS, and other operating systems. They need to provide better integration with other operating systems if they don't already."
"The price could be improved."
"We didn't know the solution enough, and therefore, it took a while to set everything up correctly. There was a learning curve."
OpenText SiteScope is ranked 27th 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.