Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
OpenText Real User Monitoring Logo

OpenText Real User Monitoring Reviews

Vendor: OpenText
3.3 out of 5
Leave a review

What is OpenText Real User Monitoring?

Real User Monitoring (RUM) an End user monitoring that gives you visibility into user behavior for fast, targeted problem resolution. It monitors the performance and availability of business-critical application services for all users at all locations all the time. It automatically discovers underlying infrastructure and classifies user actions - giving you instant visibility into session and whole service health over web, cloud, and mobile user experience. It allows you to trace user experience across tiers, capture live sessions, see where customers clicked, measure response times, and see pages that caused problems. And you can easily capture and replay user sessions to create test scripts that reflect real user behavior. All this data gives you new ability to analyze which application transactions your users are performing and what application response they are experiencing. RUM currently supports over 20 application protocols and applications such as SAP, Citrix, and native mobile application monitoring on Android.

Get the OpenText Real User Monitoring Buyer's Guide and find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Real User Monitoring, Dynatrace, Datadog and more!
OpenText Real User Monitoring is the #45 ranked solution in APM tools. PeerSpot users give OpenText Real User Monitoring an average rating of 6.6 out of 10. OpenText Real User Monitoring is most commonly compared to Dynatrace: OpenText Real User Monitoring vs Dynatrace. OpenText Real User Monitoring is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 48% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a manufacturing company, accounting for 11% of all views.
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Real User Monitoring
August 2025
Get the report
Helped 866,218 peers since 2012

Featured OpenText Real User Monitoring reviews

Read more reviews

OpenText Real User Monitoring mindshare

As of August 2025, the mindshare of OpenText Real User Monitoring in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category stands at 0.2%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year, according to calculations based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Real User Monitoring0.2%
Dynatrace10.2%
Datadog8.5%
Other81.1%
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

PeerResearch reports based on OpenText Real User Monitoring reviews

TypeTitleDate
CategoryApplication Performance Monitoring (APM) and ObservabilityAug 29, 2025Download
ProductReviews, tips, and advice from real usersAug 29, 2025Download
ComparisonOpenText Real User Monitoring vs DatadogAug 29, 2025Download
ComparisonOpenText Real User Monitoring vs DynatraceAug 29, 2025Download
ComparisonOpenText Real User Monitoring vs New RelicAug 29, 2025Download
Suggested products
TitleRatingMindshareRecommending
Dynatrace4.410.2%95%349 interviewsAdd to research
Datadog4.38.5%97%188 interviewsAdd to research
 
 
Key learnings from peers

Valuable Features

Users find OpenText Real User Monitoring valuable for application performance monitoring, providing a holistic view of real user transactions and easy implementation. It excels in proactive problem identification through threshold monitoring and offers analytics for service performance. The reporting and tracking capabilities, including monitoring website and mobile applications, are highlighted. Good technical support and efficient issue resolution are appreciated. Users also value its long-standing reliability in monitoring infrastructure and traffic analysis.
  • "It is a good product."
  • "It offers near-real-time analytics, which is helpful."
  • "With the solution, you can easily access any issues in your infrastructure."

Room for Improvement

OpenText Real User Monitoring requires improvements in user interface, agent-based support, and compatibility with non-Windows environments. It faces challenges with its outdated technology, need for extensive configuration, and integration with other products. The architecture should evolve from traditional traffic collection methods. Issues with customer implementations and monitoring limitations, such as unsupported protocols or voice traffic, need addressing. Enhancements in R&D and diagnostics are needed, along with more efficient and responsive technical support.

  • "Customer support needs to improve by bringing in more people who are knowledgeable about the tool, as there are very few left."
  • "The diagnostics perspective, particularly in terms of the root cause analysis of failures, should be improved."
  • "The solution's technical support presents a lot of issues with too many delays."

ROI

Users reported that OpenText Real User Monitoring significantly improved their application performance and user experience. IT teams could diagnose issues quickly, reducing downtime and enhancing productivity. Cost savings were observed due to fewer system outages. Stakeholders appreciated the detailed insights and metrics, which facilitated better decision-making. Additionally, meeting user expectations and maintaining service quality became more manageable, driving higher satisfaction rates and enhanced ROI for their organizations.

Pricing

Enterprise users report that OpenText Real User Monitoring costs approximately €30,000 ($35,500 USD) for the enterprise edition with a three-year license term. While pricing is considered reasonable compared to competitors, it is viewed as expensive compared to some alternatives. The setup involves a one-time license cost with annual support fees. Some find it difficult to compare directly due to bundling with other products, whereas competitors like Cisco and AppDynamics are noted to be pricier.
  • "Compared to other tools, OpenText Real User Monitoring is an expensive solution."
  • "Not expensive."
  • "If I compare with other vendors, other vendors are more expensive"

Popular Use Cases

OpenText Real User Monitoring is primarily used for monitoring user transactions and application performance. Companies utilize it to assess network performance, detect errors, and gather metrics to improve services. It captures end-user traffic for backend analysis and correlates it with internal data. Integration companies also apply it for evaluating business service levels and ensuring availability, performance, and error analysis from a user perspective, enhancing user experience and maintaining service standards.

Service and Support

OpenText Real User Monitoring customer service and support show a range of experiences. While many appreciate the responsiveness and friendliness of the team, some feel there's room for improvement, particularly in technical expertise and staff knowledge. Micro Focus provides critical response teams, though specific users note the need for personnel experienced with the tool. Some suggest shifting focus from fixing issues to enhancing the tool's design for long-term benefits.

Deployment

OpenText Real User Monitoring's initial setup varies in complexity. While some find it straightforward, others encounter challenges, particularly with configuration and support. Several users report easy implementation, requiring minimal time, yet others note it as cumbersome and time-intensive, dependent on deployment size and modules. The setup requires coordination with teams for network configurations and can require ongoing refinement. Users emphasize the need for clarity in steps, and while it offers automation, maintenance may necessitate dedicated personnel.

Scalability

OpenText Real User Monitoring is recognized for its scalability across different organizations, supporting enterprises with a large number of employees. It requires proportional infrastructure investment as applications and transactions grow, which could become costly. It supports multiple users, needing additional hardware for expanded use, with varied scales depending on company needs. Users appreciate its capabilities and flexibility, rating scalability positively despite needing improvements to handle increasing traffic efficiently.

Stability

Users have noted that OpenText Real User Monitoring generally has a stable performance, though some encounter stability issues primarily due to its reliance on Java, causing slow dashboard loads and occasional errors. Future updates to HTML 5 promise improvements. While some users find it consistently reliable, others mention the need for maintenance resources to ensure smooth operation. Stability often depends on software compatibility, and ratings vary from six to nine out of ten.
These insights are based on the in-depth reviews provided by peers to help you make a better buying decision.
Download our OpenText Real User Monitoring Buyer's Guide for additional reliable information.

Review data by company size

By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
By visitors reading reviews
Company SizeCount
Small Business21
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise31
By visitors reading reviews

Top industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Energy/Utilities Company
9%
Performing Arts
9%
Educational Organization
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Hospitality Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Transportation Company
5%
Outsourcing Company
3%
Real Estate/Law Firm
3%
Retailer
3%
Leisure / Travel Company
3%
Insurance Company
3%
Legal Firm
3%
University
2%
Construction Company
2%
Consumer Goods Company
2%
Logistics Company
2%
Marketing Services Firm
2%
Media Company
2%
Comms Service Provider
2%

Compare OpenText Real User Monitoring with alternative products

Go!

Learn more about OpenText Real User Monitoring

OpenText Real User Monitoring was previously known as Micro Focus Real User Monitor, Micro Focus RUM, HPE RUM.

OpenText Real User Monitoring customers

Avea, Maccabi Healthcare Services, TEB

Related questions

  • 20
When evaluating Application Performance Management, what aspect do you think is the most important to look for?
  • 174
APM tools for a Managed Service Provider - Dynatrace vs. AppDynamics vs. Aternity vs. Ruxit
  • 43
What solution would you recommend for monitoring traffic utilization of leased lines?
  • 92
How Much Should I Budget for an APM Solution?
  • 16
Which is the best AANPM product? Should we be considering anything besides for Riverbed?
  • 24
Who Uses APM?
  • 19
What is your favorite tool for Application Performance Monitoring?
  • 33
How does synthetic monitoring differ from real user monitoring?
  • 158
Differences between SiteScope and dynaTrace?
  • 19
Splunk as an Enterprise Class monitoring solution -- thoughts?

Product Categories

Product Categories
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability

Popular Comparisons

Popular Comparisons
Dynatrace vs OpenText Real User Monitoring Logo
Dynatrace vs OpenText Real User Monitoring
Datadog vs OpenText Real User Monitoring Logo
Datadog vs OpenText Real User Monitoring
New Relic vs OpenText Real User Monitoring Logo
New Relic vs OpenText Real User Monitoring
Splunk AppDynamics vs OpenText Real User Monitoring Logo
Splunk AppDynamics vs OpenText Real User Monitoring
VMware Aria Operations for Applications vs OpenText Real User Monitoring Logo
VMware Aria Operations for Applications vs OpenText Real User Monitoring
Honeycomb Enterprise vs OpenText Real User Monitoring Logo
Honeycomb Enterprise vs OpenText Real User Monitoring
Instana Dynamic APM vs OpenText Real User Monitoring Logo
Instana Dynamic APM vs OpenText Real User Monitoring
OpenText SiteScope vs OpenText Real User Monitoring Logo
OpenText SiteScope vs OpenText Real User Monitoring
See all alternatives
 
OpenText Real User Monitoring Reviews Summary
Author infoRatingReview Summary
Sr. Solution Architect, Project Manager at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees4.5I use OpenText Real User Monitoring for tracking service availability and performance from a user's perspective. While its near-real-time analytics are valuable, improvement is needed in root cause analysis, and support is declining as development has stopped, unlike AppDynamics.
CTO at Marco Technology3.0I use OpenText Real User Monitoring for end-to-end traffic monitoring, though it's complex and requires compatibility improvements. Its proactive threshold alerts help prevent system crashes, offering potential cost reductions. Despite considering other tools, OpenText remains my primary choice.
OpenText Technical Support at CMS Computer PVT LTD4.0I use OpenText Real User Monitoring for data center and real-time monitoring as well as automation. It helps resolve infrastructure issues efficiently, but technical support is lacking. Although it provides cost savings, I find ServiceNow more accessible and effective.
Sr. Solution Architect, Project Manager at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees4.0No summary available
Delivery Manager at AMAN4.5No summary available
IT Specialist at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees1.0No summary available
Presales Manager at a tech services company with 51-200 employees2.5No summary available
Unit Manager | Management Systems and Automation at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees3.5No summary available