IBM Instana vs. OpenText SiteScope

I would recommend IBM Instana based on its strengths in automating application performance monitoring, dynamic tracing, and its ability to handle modern, containerized environments effectively. The automatic discovery and mapping feature, along with AI-powered anomaly detection, provide valuable insights for proactive issue resolution. However, I would consider factors such as the organization's specific technology stack, scalability requirements, and budget constraints. Conducting a thorough evaluation, including a trial or proof of concept, would be essential to ensure that IBM Instana aligns with our unique needs and contributes positively to our technology and business objectives.

Incentivized

SiteScope is definitely well suited in an HP server environment. It is also well suited for virtual server environments. It is also well suited for those who are happy with email and text based message alerting. It may not be appropriate in other environments where monitoring physical components is critical. Because HP SiteScope does not monitor certain physical components, it does fall short of being able to be a "one stop shop solution" in regard to monitoring. It is not well suited for those looking for logic in how alerts are sent and cascade to other people or groups.

Incentivized

• Collecting Kubernetes and Infra level logs and presenting in easy to understand visuals.
• Tracing the end-to-end journey of an event and also categorizing by technology and Endpoints
• Built-in and custom alerts help to monitor almost all of scenarios without much additional configuration.
• Ability to create Applications to logical group important flows

Incentivized

• Alerts can be configured as per business requirement.
• It can take remedial action, when defined for a particular situation.
• Severity, priority of tickets which are created upon a trigger can be well defined.
• The teams which need to be alerted can be configured in the tool itself, in case of any event.

Incentivized

• I believe that the "live" option in monitoring does not truly update the status in real-time, thus I must manually update to feel comfortable.
• The call analysis tool might be improved, third-party resources are restricted, and the pricing is slightly more than competitors in comparable categories.

Incentivized

• Sitescope is particularly used for infrastructure monitoring. Other kinds of monitors cannot be set using HP sitescope.
• Sitescope cannot have graphs like splunk which is why we have splunk as well which is an additional cost for the company.
• We can't have a direct regex operations on data inside HP sitescope. We need to have the logs placed as a single log and then do that.

Incentivized

Very straightforward and easy to use once you get past the short learning curve.

Incentivized

Can't really answer this. Setup was easy and no support has really been used at this point.

Incentivized

We chose IBM Instana for several reasons, and the most important one is that we didn't have to make changes in our code for nearly all of our applications for it to work. We are happy with the decision we made to use IBM Instana.

Incentivized

SiteScope unified console is a powerful tool for operators to easily detect warnings and alerts grouped by its hierarchical organization with real-time status displaying continuously the whole health map.

Incentivized

• System down time is shortened as our ability to troubleshoot issues goes up.
• Potential downtime is stopped as we are able to slow down calls/ availability of calls in response to monitoring the dashboard.
• We are able to react to issues quickly through the smart alert system rather than manual checks.

Incentivized

• Sitescope does exactly what it was purchased for. It may take some time to set it up but once its set up it is a rock solid product.

Incentivized