We performed a comparison between JIRA Service Management and ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Help Desk Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features are the management tools."
"This is a flexible tool for logging and tracking issues efficiently."
"The SLA, speed, the comments from agents' side, and the dashboard for agents are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable features of this solution are Incident and Request Management."
"Easily integrates with other tools."
"The product is not lacking anything that a QA will want to use."
"The dashboards are nicely laid out."
"Service Management is great if you're an Atlassian shop already using JIRA for the development team and you want another tool for help desk ticketing. When it's all under the same umbrella, I can easily take a ticket from the help desk and move it to the development team. You can't beat that integration between two products."
"ManageEngine provides additional modules that we can integrate in the future."
"The solution overall has been quite stable."
"I like that ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus has everything and can be integrated into a single product like SAP. It has also got operations, helpdesk, MDM, and everything integrated. Multiple products can be integrated into one product. You don't have to go for them separately. I also like that they have many partners in India who can come to the site and complete installations."
"ServiceDesk Plus manages all our requests, both internal and external requests, for not only ticketing but users' requests."
"Overall this is an easy and convenient solution to use."
"The most valuable features are project management, change management, and the flow according to the mail chain."
"There are a lot of great templates that you can take advantage of."
"The most valuable feature of ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus is ticket management."
"JIRA Service Management should make reporting easier. I would like something integrated with DevOps tools."
"The way it handles subtasks can be improved. We would really like the ability to have different types of subtasks. If we have a user story for a feature, we would like to have a subtask for documentation, a subtask for requirements, a subtask for development, and a subtask for testing. Right now, we just make four subtasks, but there is no way to specify their type, so we have to add a custom field to specify what type of work is this. It just means you've got to look at more data. For logging time or time tracking, we would like to have something using which we can define the work type we're doing. We would like to log whether we're working on a bug, a new development, scope change, or rework. We've got a user story for which we do the dev, and then we have to do more dev. It is the same story, but some of it could have been a scope change, and some of it could be a rework because we either screwed up the first time or missed something obvious. Currently, we have to have a custom field and track that separately. It would be nice to have some kind of work type for logging time."
"There is no notification regarding language upgrades."
"The solution should be more formalized. It could be more user-friendly."
"The search function could be improved. We have to search a certain way. There is no generic search; it is more object-oriented search."
"The queries are weak and lack advanced functionality. You can do rudimentary queries, but you can't aggregate. You can't filter for a lot of things that would be useful, so you need to use plugins to write writing advanced queries. I run into problems when working with different organizations because they always have restrictions on what kind of plugins they allow."
"There should be better connections with access management. They should improve the connectivity."
"The product does not have the capability to sort queued tickets by product. This would be useful in making workflows more efficient."
"It needs more customization and the ability to generate reports based on custom feeds. At present, if you create a custom feed in any form, you cannot create a report based on those criteria."
"Customization has room for improvement in ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus."
"The documentation could be improved."
"I would like to improve the task management module and analytics."
"There are some performance issues. The solution we used before this ran through a centralized server for remote control and it was much more responsive than this one is. There is a bit of a lag with the remote control option."
"I'd like to understand more technical features due to the fact that I want to teach globally. I understand all the questions in the search engine. I want to find more technical information about the product."
"I think the user interface needs to be improved and needs to be enhanced to be more supportive to users."
"The product needs to allow for implementation for other departments besides the IT help desk."
More ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus Pricing and Cost Advice →
JIRA Service Management is ranked 2nd in Help Desk Software with 73 reviews while ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus is ranked 4th in Help Desk Software with 57 reviews. JIRA Service Management is rated 8.2, while ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of JIRA Service Management writes "Customizable, stable, and integrates well". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus writes " Easy to configure and affordable compared to other software options". JIRA Service Management is most compared with ServiceNow, Freshdesk, BMC Helix ITSM, PagerDuty Operations Cloud and Zendesk, whereas ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus is most compared with ServiceNow, Freshservice, BMC Helix ITSM, Zoho Desk and SCSM. See our JIRA Service Management vs. ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus report.
See our list of best Help Desk Software vendors and best IT Service Management (ITSM) vendors.
We monitor all Help Desk Software 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.