OpenText SiteScope Reviews

It has been used in a wide area of monitoring systems and network devices in my company.

It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc. It does not use an agent, which might tax system resources.

Licensing is a little steep. 

SiS, the abbreviated acronym for the tool, used to be owned by another company. You could purchase the product with unlimited monitors for $2500. Since HP's acquisition of the product, licensing is done on a points-per-monitor basis. Each individual monitor costs x number of points, an HP sales rep has those exact numbers, which change, seemingly., at whim! :-) You just get an error that you cannot add more monitors without additional licensing! With OOTB you get a few, not enough though to monitor any numbers in a enterprise. And, with literally hundreds of nodes and application monitors, database, web, etc. available, costs can get steep!

We haven't had any issues with stability.

We haven't had any issues with scalability.

It's a monitoring tool that's deeply integrated with Performance Center. We can put a load on it and see all the information we need. Plus, it's an inexpensive solution.

It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics. When we perform testing, it gives us a single client for selecting which monitoring data we want for later analysis of the performance of our systems.

We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope. I think this would make it a true monitoring tool for the environment.

It just works.

We're able to scale when necessary.

We have not used tech support.

We'll probably remove SiteScope shortly because we've been using another monitoring tool in production. SiteScope is just not something we use very much of any more.

• Agentless monitoring
• Different types of health checks
• Web-based UI for easy interaction
• End-to-end monitoring
• E-mail alert messages along with SMS features

System health check monitoring and email alerts after reaching threshold limits.

Monitor mobile health status too.

6 years

No

No

No

Customer Service:

7/10

Technical Support:

8/10

No

HP vendor

100%

Little expensive

Splunk and Gomez

No

The most valuable feature is its ability to do what it’s supposed to do, which is to ensure that you have a wide array of tool-sets to properly monitor your infrastructure. Also, that it’s able to scale properly is valuable.

The products have been able to deliver the service to our business, which is to ensure that the applications that depend on our servers are always available. The business and support teams can be supported properly. We can choose how to use HP’s tools to monitor the changing dynamics of IT technology. Sitescope allows us to run queries to deal with different cases, so that we don’t have to go back to HP to open an ER for us. That’s one of the main things I love about the product.

I think, what comes to mind, to be able to reliably do more monitoring on a single Sitescope server in a more compact way, with fewer servers, would be an area for improvement. Right now there’s no way to really say that you’ve hit the limit for the server, but that’s important to know.

Every product has its issues, but I think overall it’s stable. It’s never perfect but it’s pretty good.

I think that the scalability needs to be worked on a bit. We can scale fine horizontally, but we’d like to scale less horizontal and be more compact. HP still has a bit of ways to go to ensure that this happens. I would give it a 6-7/10.

It depends. When you purchase the product, you have somebody managing your account that always handles your case, which ensures that you get the response from the right tier of service, which we’ve found extremely helpful.

About nine years ago, they were changing requirements in what we were doing, so we needed to find a solution that could cover as much that we needed.

Straightforward and very good.

We also looked at BMC, and IBM. We chose HP because of the pure requirements and matching functionality with the product. I think the key reason why we chose HP is that the solution gives you a tool-set to monitor the technology vs. other products that only gives you a very specific solution that you can only use to monitor one particular technology.

You need to ensure that functionality meets the majority of your requirements. Quality or proposed quality of their support as well as their ability to keep ahead of the curve in terms of the technology. But remember there’s no perfect solution – you always apply the 80/20 rule and find the solution that can match your current requirements and anticipate what your future needs are. That’s why we’ve had our product for over nine years now, which shows we did a good job with our selection.

Agentless data collection Supporting a big number of monitor metrics

May require a dashboard for the data collected

Easy to deploy

Initial setup was straightforward but when it comes to monitors that look deep inside details like an agent data collection solution, too many customizations and scripting is needed.

HP OM

This solution is a data collection solution. Its added value can't be shown unless you have a clean and clear dashboard to review data collected and correlated