OpenText Operations Bridge Reviews

For me, the most valuable feature is the presentation of the status of business services. It takes events and topologies and shows you the health and performance of your business services.

It gives businesses the ability to monitor their services with dashboards that show whether those services are working properly. For example, if the business is a bank and its customers can't take money from an ATM, the bank ultimately loses a lot of money. They need to be able to constantly check their the health and performance of this important business service.

At times, there are performance and configuration issues. In regards to the performance issues, the system can be a little slow if it's not configured correctly or if it's not used properly.

I'd also love to see the correlation mechanism work even better. It's a nice feature -- correlation between different tech system, application, and network events -- but it requires a lot of configuration for that mechanism to work. I'd like to see it work simpler, better.

I’ve been using HP products for almost 10 years, and Ops Bridge for the last three or four years.

There's been no issues with deployment.

It's a great product stability-wise. Like every complicated platform, it has some issues, but the stability is excellent.

We have only about 10 or 20 users because we restrict its usage to operators or managers. Each person who logs into the system is a critical user.

The level of technical support depends on who's handling your case. Some cases are very slow, taking one or two months, and some cases take half a day. It depends on the issue or the guy handling it.

Setting it up is very simple, but you need to design your architecture properly.

We looked at Microsoft, CA and BMC. They all have similar products, but HP is the strongest.

Compared to other products on the market today, I think it's the best in terms of architecture and capabilities. Like every product, it has its issues, but at the end of the day, it provides its users with business value.

We use the on-premises version to monitor our systems and manage emails. All our systems use Operations Bridge, especially the critical systems.

It is a very complicated product. It's difficult to manage. Nowadays, products are very easy to manage, deploy, and integrate, but Operations Bridge is very complicated to manage. Maybe it is an improvement point for this product. It's not easy to integrate with Operations Bridge.

It should be plug-and-play.

It was a very stable product, but now I noticed it's not a very stable product anymore. Under its previous name, it was very stable, but since they changed it to Operations Bridge, it's not very stable. When the product is complicated, it can lead to the solution being unstable.

Our entire administrative team uses Operations Bridge. That is around 50 people at the same time. We send lots of events by email from Operations Bridge.

Their technical support is also not very good. If we open a case, because we couldn't solve the problem, the case comes back. We don't open a case just to ask a question to the support team.

The setup was very complex.

It should be easier to use this product, because once you're in production, systems are more complicated. This kind of tools should be very simple and straightforward.

I would rate this as six out of ten.

After I think ten years of using OML, we finally had some nice dashboards, which enabled us to get more insight and produce reports.

I would like the scalability and stability improved.

For OMi, it's not stable enough to get an enterprise solution out of it. I was interested in a solution presented at HPE Discover London because we are talking about 7,000 servers. They had 50,000. So I will follow up on that to talk to the technicians involved to see what was involved to get that working.

I want to investigate that further because I'm not sure whether the scalability is currently in there out of the box. It will be in there, but it will need a lot of tweaking and tuning.

Technical support could be better.

The initial setup went quite well. It was smooth.

When we were looking for a solution, we were looking for something that had the same features as where we were coming from; so it would be just a natural step to take. We were with OML before. We have them both now.

We looked at other vendors, but we have a five year contract with HPE, so it wasn't necessary.

Plan right.

This solution is used for centralized infrastructure and application monitoring. It will take monitoring data from other tools and contribute to the central repository. Sometimes it is integrated with the service desk to create incidents when something goes wrong.

I have used versions of this product for Windows and Linux, and they are slightly different.

The most valuable feature is the seamless monitoring of both Windows and Unix servers.

You can create an application topology that shows relationships between different components.

The advancement of this solution seems to have stalled. These types of products have a long history and it may be best to create a brand new application, from scratch. It is difficult to suggest significant improvements.

The initial setup of this tool is complex for people who lack experience with it.

It would be great to improve the automatic discovery of application topology.

I have been using Micro Focus Operations Manager for more than six years.

We have had no issues with respect to stability.

Scalability has been good enough for our needs.

I have been in contact with Micro Focus support a few times and I would rate them a four out of five. Sometimes, they took to long to solve problems. The response time was always good, but it was the time it took to actually resolve the issue that was slow in some cases.

The initial setup is complex. It is not easy to understand how to correctly implement it for the first time. Subsequent implementations were much easier because we had some experience. You have to understand what you want to monitor before you start with the implementation, and a technical person is required.

The deployment takes approximately three to five months for a medium-sized implementation.

This is a product that I would recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Monitoring our hybrid infrastructure, where we have AWS, GCP, and on-premise.

Also, the container monitoring was a good point.

The preloaded rules and ways to monitor your systems are a must. We did not want to create rules for each system and software.

We are able to better identify the root cause of an incident. It also reduces the number of tickets that we have received, because there is some correlation.

Implementation could be improved. We also need training and a good partner in order to install and configure it.

No issues.

We used Nagios, but it was not able to monitor container and cloud well.

The first setup was complex. That is why we asked for a partner's help.

Setup costs can be high depending on the partner, but it is worth it.

No other options.

We are using this solution for incident management, and event automation.

In Micro Focus OBM, everything was controlled at the node level and now everything can be controlled at the console level. 

It's a very good product overall.

The pricing could be improved.

I have been using Micro Focus Operations Manager for ten years.

We are using the latest version.

It's very stable.

It's a scalable solution. 

We have approximately 45,000 users in our organization. 

We are only working with two products, one is Micro Focus Operations Manager, and the other is Orchestration, that we are trying.

It's very easy to install.

We have a team of 15 members to deploy, maintain, and support this solution.

The cost is very high.

We plan to continue using this solution. We are already working on a new project using Micro Focus and I recommend it for other users.

I would rate Micro Focus Operations Manager a nine out of ten.

It's difficult to assess the valuable features. We are living in a small country while HP is more focused on larger companies, so for us it's quite expensive. It's very powerful, but it's quite expensive.

The broad integration possibilities, I'd say, with any kind of product, are probably the most valuable feature.

We are waiting for quicker release cycles. Also containerized upgrade, so that you don't have to bring a system entirely down to make a minor upgrade, in fact, or a minor patch.

With support, you have to apply some changes which require a restart. That is in fact unacceptable. It's a good product, but there's still too much development to do on the customer's side to have it really working.

We have been using the solution, all through the versions, about 15 years.

It's quite stable.

In the latest versions, it is quite scalable. The problem is, when you want to extend, it takes a lot of work. It has a lot of consequences. I hope this will be improving very soon.

Technical support is improving. I'd say they're rather reactive in most cases. I'd say that on the later versions of Operations Bridge, for instance, responses are quite good. Looking into all their systems, which are still supported, we're missing some information.

I have the impression that the engineers are not skilled enough anymore because they evolve. All the older products tend to be forgotten. But we're still dealing with them. It's a bit of a challenge.

Setups are complex, not straightforward. First of all, there are all the checks that you have to do. You have to see if it does not interfere with other integrated products. There are some parameters that might get lost.

There's a whole bunch of eventual hot fixes and patches that should be installed first. This requires down time, so you bring down the entire system. That's a very bad situation.

We consider mostly the solution itself when assessing vendors.