Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Real User Monitoring 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

OpenText Real User Monitoring
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
45th
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText SiteScope
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
34th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of OpenText Real User Monitoring is 0.2%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText SiteScope is 0.5%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

Aphiwat Leetavorn. - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers back-end monitoring, so it can analyze user experience but when customers change the software or version, this tool is quite sensitive
Real User Monitoring tools help proactively identify problems before they become critical by monitoring thresholds. There is a threshold and an SOA threshold. For example, it starts to go yellow, and if it becomes red, the system will crash. When it starts to become yellow (Threshold Approaching), we have to resolve it. This is the same case where we'll know what happened before it's too late. So we can make an early decision to prevent it, maybe by kicking some users off the system before it crashes.
Christopher M Cook - PeerSpot reviewer
Doesn't require much custom coding and can run on different platforms, but the types of scripting files you can execute on it are limited
In terms of issues with Micro Focus SiteScope, some that we've run into were unintended, for example, extra executions of monitors and some false alerts when there were problems connecting to endpoints or there were issues with the application that sometimes resulted in false positives. We had a few issues with the way time zones were configured when the system time differed from the time indicated during the monitoring, but those were just little things that weren't too bad. As far as the limitations of Micro Focus SiteScope, the types of scripting files that can be executed are rather limited unless you go to some third-party plugins. These are the areas for improvement in the solution.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"With the solution, you can easily access any issues in your infrastructure."
"Real User Monitoring tools help proactively identify problems before they become critical by monitoring thresholds. There is a threshold and an SOA threshold."
"The most valuable feature is application performance monitoring."
"The technical support is good at resolving issues."
"It is a good product."
"Very easy to implement."
"It offers near-real-time analytics, which is helpful."
"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."
"SiteScope has built-in flat file DB, hence it removes the dependency of an external DB for higher stability."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"The tool has capabilities other than managing web-based applications, like URL Monitor and EPI Script. It is also easy to use the tool."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"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."
"There's no agent you need installed on the servers. In our environment, we have some servers out of our control so we cannot manage them. We use SiteScope to monitor the availability, the resources on the servers, etc. This allows us to do this job without installing agents so there's no need to take care of anything on the server."
 

Cons

"The product needs more R&D to make it easier and more compatible with other software."
"Customer support needs to improve by bringing in more people who are knowledgeable about the tool, as there are very few left."
"This technology is considered to be older."
"Real User Monitor needs to cover more protocols to provide more in-depth information. It could also be better at monitoring voice-related traffic. There is currently no visibility in that channel."
"The solution's technical support presents a lot of issues with too many delays."
"When we want to monitor our encrypted traffic, this product doesn't work because our cipher is not supported."
"We would like to see support for non-Windows environments."
"Some issues with login errors."
"I would be very interested in having transaction traceability included in the product, to give us a better view of what is really going wrong in a particular method and action."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
"The lack of an agent means that remote monitoring requires multiple firewall ports to be opened."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is approximately €30,000 ($35,500 USD) for the enterprise edition."
"Compared to other tools, OpenText Real User Monitoring is an expensive solution."
"If I compare with other vendors, other vendors are more expensive"
"Not expensive."
"Depending on your requirements, there are two licensing models available. A simple point model, or an endpoint model."
"Licensing is a little steep."
"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."
"When Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope has introduced approximately eight years ago and there was not very much competition making the price high. However, when comparing the price of Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope now to other tools, they should reduce the price. It is similar to a legacy tool at this point."
"I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten on a scale where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"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."
"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."
"SiteScope licensing can be node based-or monitor-based. I would recommend for node-based licensing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
29%
Government
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
34%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Real User Monitor?
The diagnostics perspective, particularly in terms of the root cause analysis of failures, should be improved. There needs to be more development in this area, as the support and the number of peop...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Real User Monitor?
The use case is about user-level monitoring and the availability of a service for a user. It's about whether the service is available, its performance, and the type of errors a user is receiving, f...
What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus Real User Monitor?
I rate the solution as nine. It is a good product. Everyone should have it as it is essential today, but choose the vendor accordingly. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
What do you like most about Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope?
The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring.
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?
While working with OpenText, I noticed sometimes teams refuse intervention due to compliance issues. Overcoming control restrictions for different applications could be improved.
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Real User Monitor, Micro Focus RUM, HPE RUM
Micro Focus SiteScope, HPE SiteScope, SiteScope
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Avea, Maccabi Healthcare Services, TEB
Vodafone Ireland, Kuveyt Turk Participation Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Real User Monitoring vs. OpenText SiteScope and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.