"The solution is quite stable."
"Azure Monitor is very stable."
"The most valuable feature is that it's stable. It hasn't crossed any thresholds."
"We like this searchability and availability of the data."
"Good load and metrics gathering and very good analysis."
"The solution works well overall. It's easy to implement and simple to use."
"Provides an overview and high-level information."
"The most valuable feature is that it ensures our servers are up."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"The troubleshooting logs need improvement. There should be some improvement there. I have a hard time finding the right logs at the right times whenever there is an issue occurring."
"In my opinion, they should improve the overall user experience, especially when it comes to indexing and searching collective logs."
"The process of implementation needs to be easier."
"Lacks information including details related to where problems lie."
"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 doesn't tell you why something happened. It just tells you that it happened. It should also have some type of AI. Environments and applications are becoming more and more complex every day with hundreds or thousands of microservices. Therefore, having to do a lot of the stuff manually takes a lot of time, and on top of that, troubleshooting issues takes a lot of time. The traditional method of troubleshooting doesn't really work for or apply to this environment we're in. So, having an AI-based system and the ability to automate deployments of your monitoring and configurations makes it much easier."
"The price could be lower but it is not a must."
"When something goes down, we want the option to have automation in place to get it back up again as quickly as possible."
"Automation related to gathering metrics from more applications could be improved."
"SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
"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."
Azure Monitor maximizes the availability and performance of your applications by delivering a comprehensive solution for collecting, analyzing, and acting on telemetry from your cloud and on-premises environments. It helps you understand how your applications are performing and proactively identifies issues affecting them and the resources they depend on.
Azure Monitor is ranked 8th in Application Performance Management (APM) with 9 reviews while Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is ranked 24th in Application Performance Management (APM) with 3 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.2, while Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "Requires out of the box monitoring, real-time monitoring, and better network mapping". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope writes "System resource monitoring that generates automated alerts and support tickets". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Splunk, Dynatrace, New Relic APM and SolarWinds AppOptics, whereas Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope is most compared with Dynatrace, Splunk, AppDynamics, Broadcom DX Application Performance Management and New Relic APM. See our Azure Monitor vs. Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope report.
See our list of best Application Performance Management (APM) vendors.
We monitor all Application Performance Management (APM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.