OpenText Real User Monitoring Reviews

We use this solution for monitoring. We have a business service and want to know what users are choosing and what the errors are. We also use it to calculate the business level agreements with the user experience.

We are an integration company.

The reporting feature is good for us.

This technology is considered to be older. We are using the type of data collection that is mirroring traffic from application servers to Real User Monitor servers. Many other vendors such as AppDynamics, and Dynatrace, are using code injection and the values are more true with code injection. But for the mirroring, or data mirroring, it is not as true.

On the technical side, the data mirroring is easier to configure. The code injection needs development. You have to direct the development team on what to do, for you to use the data. For the data mirroring, you can ask the network team to mirror the application server data to my server. You can get all of the data. it is very easy to configure.

Most of the dashboards require a lot of configuration. We are not happy with the dashboard.

It is simple but you need to do some extra configuration, and you need to know another reporting tool that needs to integrate with. It is very difficult to manage this process 

I have been using Micro Focus Real User Monitor for more than ten years.

We are using the latest version.

This solution is very reliable. It's stable.

Micro Focus Real User Monitor is scalable. It is easy to scale.

We have 50 to 100 users in our organization who are using it. These include administration, implementation, and product owners.

Technical support is very responsive.

The initial setup was straightforward. It is very easy to set up.

Our license agreement is a three-year term.

Pricing is reasonable. If I compare with other vendors, other vendors are more expensive.

I would recommend this solution but I would recommend code injection.

I would rate Micro Focus Real User Monitor a seven out of ten.

We are a solution provider and the Micro Focus Real User Monitor is one of the products that we implement for our customers. They use it primarily for monitoring users and application performance.

The most valuable feature is application performance monitoring.

The implementation is quite easy.

We would like to see support for non-Windows environments. Right now, we have to use it on a Windows server, but some of our customers don't like this.

I would like to see improvements made in terms of agent-based support. As it is now, we can install an agent on the application server, but it is not recommended for systems that are in production. In our experience, it is a really good option that we can implement for customers that do not want to reconfigure or change their network.

I have been working with the Micro Focus Real User Monitor for approximately 10 years.

This product is quite stable.

This is scalable in some ways but not others. If you want to run multiple RUM Engines then you have to install multiple servers, and they cannot run in a single instance. For example, one RUM server can be used but it has to be standalone, with no backup server or load balancing support.

Our customers are varied in terms of size and industry. Many of them are very large enterprises, with more than 10,000 employees.

The Micro Focus technical support is quite good. They also have a critical response team, which can provide an immediate response if needed. I have had the opportunity to work with them on some complex cases and they are very powerful, useful, and friendly with the customer. It saves a lot of time.

The initial setup is quite simple. I find it quite friendly for both installation and configuration. Our customers also find it easy to understand.

The length of time required for deployment depends on how many modules the customer wants to monitor, as well as how many the RUM server can discover.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this product is to read the manual carefully and work with support during the implementation phase. This will help to avoid issues in the future.

Overall, this is a good solution. One final complaint I have is that the roadmap from the vendor is not clear, which makes it less attractive to some customers.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.