No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Azure Monitor vs OpenText SiteScope comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Azure Monitor
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
8th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Monitoring Software (5th)
OpenText SiteScope
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
15th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Azure Monitor is 2.4%, down from 7.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText SiteScope is 0.9%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Azure Monitor2.4%
OpenText SiteScope0.9%
Other96.7%
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

Andy Rabern - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant at a outsourcing company with 201-500 employees
Telemetry insights have improved how I track user behavior and application performance daily
I feel Azure Monitor does a fair job. I do feel it is not a streaming service in my opinion. There are advantages to having stream messaging and logging on that level. But for what it is, I feel it does well. My perspective is more based on an Application Insights agent running on a service or an app service and sending the telemetry via the agent, and also doing the filtering of telemetry at the agent level so you are not having a ton of telemetry. I believe Azure Monitor does pretty much the same thing. I have also used tools such as New Relic, and New Relic is a much more robust tool, but that is a different product and you are going to pay for that. It is a different offering altogether. The subscription that we had at the time allowed for a couple gigabytes of telemetry during the month, and I believe that telemetry only lives for about two months. You have to experiment with it to see how much you want to pay. I was not really involved in the pricing. It was more along the lines of we were running up against our limits in terms of the amount of free telemetry or telemetry that we get with our subscription, and so we either needed to scale back or turn specific telemetry types off or do some more sampling. It is nice that those capabilities are there so that you can reduce the amount of telemetry. I cannot really speak to pricing but I do believe that it is somewhat reasonable for Azure Monitor. New Relic is pretty expensive, I believe.
Gyanesh Rahatekar - PeerSpot reviewer
Back office at Reliance Industries Ltd
Achieve seamless incident response with valuable monitoring capabilities and reliable alerts
There are multiple features related to OpenText SiteScope monitoring that I have found to be very useful, such as SSL monitoring. If SSL is present as a file in a server, then OpenText SiteScope is a very effective tool to monitor when that certificate expires. It provides comprehensive information related to SSL certificates and log monitoring. If any kind of required keyword monitoring is present in the log file, OpenText SiteScope has excellent functionality for monitoring. It is very easy to configure and obtain the correct information related to end-user requirements. The agentless monitoring feature of OpenText SiteScope is particularly impressive and easy to configure and gather information from. According to the operations team perspective, there is no impact related to resource management from the agentless monitoring. It demonstrates very low resource consumption related to its functionality.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We like the monitoring, we can look for the downtimes and look at the log to see whenever there is a crash and all the information around it."
"The detailed logging is great."
"I am monitoring all of my Azure Monitor and getting good reports. I can customize the reports to get the information I need. I am also getting emails about which AAS instances are down and everything in the system related to my services. It is easy to use, scalable, and user-friendly. Microsoft has Many guides and videos to help you understand how to create and use Azure Monitor."
"It's a Microsoft native tool, so it works well with other Microsoft technologies, which is predominantly what our customer end-user base is."
"The solution very easily integrates with Azure services and in one click you can monitor your resource."
"The overall product rating is nine out of ten."
"One of the most useful aspects of this solution is the out-of-the-box functionality on all areas, especially on Application Insights, zero instrumentation, and artificial intelligence for event correlation."
"From a business standpoint, I think the ability to see where your users are is valuable."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"Managing SiteScope is not as difficult as its reveal."
"I would recommend the product."
"The system is really powerful; instead of executing jobs multiple times, I can configure it once, schedule, and apply it on multiple servers in sequence."
"SiteScope is very intuitive and we've been able to accomplish what we want very quickly and efficiently compared to IBM."
"SiteScope is deployed on our network perimeter, and gives our operations teams an end user perspective of service availability."
"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."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
 

Cons

"The scalability could be improved as there are some limitations."
"Using Azure Monitor and Azure Arc separately to monitor different environments can be complicated."
"The cost skyrockets once you start using it, and there are complaints that the actual cost of the Kubernetes cluster was less than the cost they were incurring for Azure Monitor."
"The solution's monitoring feature has limitations for analyzing multiple metrics."
"There are a lot of things that take more time to do, such as charting, alerting, and correlation of data, and things like that."
"Azure Monitor is not user-friendly, and the interface is not exciting. Switching between the dashboards is not easy."
"The onboarding process of certain assets and the overall UI can be improved in Azure Monitor"
"I will rate Azure Monitor a seven out of ten, because this solution has two things that we don't like, e.g. it doesn't tell you what and how it happened."
"Sometimes in a huge environment, I think the documentation does not provide the required calculations so you can't know what the required set up should be. You need to test."
"Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring."
"The interface of OpenText SiteScope needs improvement. It has a Java-based interface, which is slow and could be simplified for better usability."
"They need to offer better technical support, which, right now, is not helpful or responsive."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"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."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"They have not kept up with browser security requirements or advances in GUIs, they switched to a corruptible database architecture instead of text config files."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Its cost depends on the ingestion of the logs. It could go anywhere. For an out-of-the-box platform such as FrameFlow, you pay pretty much a fixed price and you get what you get, whereas, with something like Azure Monitor, you pay by the ingestion charge, so you can have one client who pays hardly anything for the same alerts, and another client pays loads and loads."
"Azure Monitor is a low-priced solution, which is why it would work best on small-scale projects."
"Regarding pricing, Azure Monitor is free with Azure license, so there are no additional costs for using it."
"The licensing is a monthly fee."
"The solution is a pay-as-you-go consumption service and is the least expensive in the market."
"The solution is expensive, but it is worth the price."
"Azure Monitor is a competitively priced solution."
"It is a pay-as-you-go model. I find it very cost-effective."
"SiteScope licensing can be node based-or monitor-based. I would recommend for node-based licensing."
"I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten on a scale where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"The pricing or licensing cost for Micro Focus SiteScope is often bundled with other things, so the cost for each individual would be difficult to calculate. Pricing could be $2,000,000 a year. My company pays for technical support because it's part of the contract with Micro Focus SiteScope. You buy the licenses, but you're also paying for the support. With Nagios, it's much more bare-bones as far as paying for licenses and the software itself, and my company didn't have to use as much Nagios support yet in one or two years because there weren't too many problems using Nagios, and it's much more cost-effective, so that's one of the reasons why my company is migrating to Nagios from Micro Focus SiteScope."
"You have to pay for their "solution templates". Other tools do not charge you for knowledge-based monitoring bundles."
"Depending on your requirements, there are two licensing models available. A simple point model, or an endpoint model."
"It is expensive. I don't like its licensing. I don't like anything where you have to license it by individual licenses. I'm not a fan of that, but that's just me."
"The product's pricing should be lower since there are many open-source products that can do the same job with better user interfaces. The tool's pricing is yearly and you need to pay for support."
"Licensing is a little steep."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
893,438 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
10%
University
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise29
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise21
 

Questions from the Community

How does Splunk compare with Azure Monitor?
Splunk handles a high amount of data very well. We use Splunk to capture information and as an aggregator for monitoring information from different sources. Splunk is very good at alerting us if we...
What needs improvement with Azure Monitor?
I feel Azure Monitor does a fair job. I do feel it is not a streaming service in my opinion. There are advantages to having stream messaging and logging on that level. But for what it is, I feel it...
What is your primary use case for Azure Monitor?
I am a developer who uses Azure Monitor for telemetry of the applications that I work on. Application Insights is one of those tools, and I have also used other non-Azure products before. Currently...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?
The licensing scheme for Micro Focus tools is reasonable, and more affordable. It's seen as medium or de-receivable.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?
Regarding areas for improvement, there may be minor issues, but I have not faced any significant issues with OpenText SiteScope because I have a team that uses this product daily. As a monitoring d...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?
OpenText SiteScope has a lot of use cases including monitoring websites, monitoring URLs, monitoring infrastructure resources like CPU, hard disk, and memory usage, and customized monitoring script...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus SiteScope, HPE SiteScope, SiteScope
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Rackspace, First Gas, Allscripts, ABB Group
Vodafone Ireland, Kuveyt Turk Participation Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Monitor vs. OpenText SiteScope and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,438 professionals have used our research since 2012.