OpenText Real User Monitoring Reviews

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.

Otherwise, there are many other products that score well on a standalone basis. Micro Focus has kind of lost their place in the APM market place, which they used to enjoy with their market reacquisition product.

If we're talking about an end-to-end solution, it has to come from one vendor, which provides the underlying infrastructure as well. In that case, Micro Focus or BMC would score better than one-point solutions, like AppDynamics, New Relic, or Dynatrace, because they are pure APM solutions.

When it comes to end-to-end apps management, integrated solutions score better. Otherwise, you would need a lot of integration done along with the underlying infrastructure to get the end-to-end view. Besides the transaction side, you will also need to set up the underlying infrastructure, database, and the whole holistic view, if you would like to have that.

One area to improve is the user interface, of course. The second one is their R&D has virtually stopped building a product roadmap. They need to really do a catch-up game with many of their incoming competitors. They actually need to completely revisit their product development strategy and overall product approach, if they wish to remain relevant in the APM market.

If there are any issues they have been resolved, either by test fix, bug fix, or patches. We found this to be a stable product.

We haven't had any challenges with scalability. The fact is, scalability also leads to a linear requirement on the infrastructure needed to deploy the solution. That effectively means that if you have more applications, more transactions need to be managed, you need to use a lot of provisioning on your infrastructure that hosts an APM solution of that size. This will turn out, eventually, to be a costly affair.

I am not satisfied in their technical support, of late.

The initial setup has two components. One is building the infrastructure to monitor and the other is building the configuration for monitoring. The first part is straightforward, but we have seen many challenges building the configuration for monitoring.

The product is not working. I'm talking about issues that last a year and a half. The product does face some challenges, in terms of bugs and taking a longer time than expected to fix those bugs.

It all depends upon the size of the deployment, so it could probably take from two months to one year. More importantly, in your test product, the one-time deployment is not good enough because you need to continuously refine and improve it. That needs to be ongoing to get the product to reach a certain level of maturity, in order to get the best benefit out of it.

I would go one step back. I would like them to consider the overall holistic solution they have chosen. If they're choosing the end-to-end infrastructure management solution also from Micro Focus, then they need to identify what APM functionality they are really looking for. They should get the POC done for those functionalities in their own environment for the Micro Focus APM solution. If they are satisfied, they should go for it. Otherwise, they should not. If it is a standalone solution, however, I would not recommend Micro Focus. A standalone APM should be ideally considered.

On a scale of one to ten, Micro Focus APM is not more than five.

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.

Micro Focus Real User Monitor is used for monitoring users on a network.

The most useful feature of this solution is tracking. When the application's traffic has been monitored it is taken from that particular application and analyzed. It is then given a live session of that particular user. For example, if you are using your bank application to do some kind of transaction, everything that you do can be tracked by that application.

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.

I have been using Micro Focus Real User Monitor for approximately five years.

Once Micro Focus Real User Monitor is established, it is stable enough, but it requires a certain level of maintenance to take care of what is needed to operate. An operational maintenance resource is needed.

The solution could improve its scalability. As the traffic increases, you need multiple probes to collect the data.

The initial setup is cumbersome because you have to talk to the network team, enable some features, capture the traffic, and then analyze. It is a little cumbersome.

Other vendors are doing application-based/agent-based, but Micro Focus Real User Monitor is still doing traffic-based. AppDynamics has an agent which is installed and collects information. Dynatrace installs another agent and collects information. They don't depend on the network traffic.

My advice to those wanting to implement this solution would be their traffic has to be directed into their network, traffic control is required. As long as the traffic is available, it can be monitored.

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