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

BMC FootPrints Service Core vs LiveAgent comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 3, 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

BMC FootPrints Service Core
Ranking in Help Desk Software
30th
Ranking in IT Service Management (ITSM)
31st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
LiveAgent
Ranking in Help Desk Software
37th
Ranking in IT Service Management (ITSM)
45th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Knowledge Management Software (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Help Desk Software category, the mindshare of BMC FootPrints Service Core is 1.2%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of LiveAgent is 0.7%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Help Desk Software Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
BMC FootPrints Service Core1.2%
LiveAgent0.7%
Other98.1%
Help Desk Software
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1765752 - PeerSpot reviewer
A flexible, comprehensive, integrated IT service and asset management platform with good technical support
We use BMC FootPrints Service Core to manage network issues, infrastructure issues, software issues, and ERP. We also use it to manage our facility. So, we do some work orders and also use it as an extra ticketing system Technical support is good. It would be better if it were more…
OO
Prioritizes tasks and easily organizes messages and responses
I've not really noticed anything that needs to be improved with the solution. Generally, I enjoyed everything. Every feature LiveAgent has was a seamless journey for me. Maybe there are others who might notice one or two flaws on LiveAgent. I use LiveAgent, but based on my position in the company as a live chat professional, there is a level that I am restricted to. There are other products that are more popular and effective than LiveAgent, like Zendesk and HubSpot. They are among the most popular live chat products, and they have more users. I will advise that LiveAgent should look at what these other people are doing and use it to improve themselves. LiveAgent should add more functionalities.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The discovery feature is very flexible."
"It is stable and its technical support is good and quick."
"Having a one stop shop for linked assets and tickets has improved end user adoption and led to a reduction in phone/email tickets."
"I think the most important feature is the ability to receive valuable ticket status support in a timely manner with little to no downtime interruptions."
"It has helped the help desk team. We get our tickets in and are able to support our customers, the end-users, with this solution."
"Technical support is good."
"​Ability to auto-generate email messages, process email messages, and approvals."
"This product solidly handles incident management, problem management, and change management."
"Provides service level optimization."
"The most valuable feature was how the solution helped us to prioritize tasks."
 

Cons

"It would be better if it were more user-friendly. The reporting part in the version we have is a little complicated. It takes too long to build and report. It would also be better if there were another way to manage notifications."
"The workflow should be made to be more user-friendly. It should also have more granular scalability."
"The mobile version of this product does not support asset management."
"We need more customizable reporting functionality. We could also use more collaboration of service desk tickets. This will allow for two departments to share the same information, track the progress of the total task scope no matter how complex the request is."
"It is pretty clunky and not very intuitive. Even though I have used it for many years, I don't think it is a very good ITSM platform in general. In the telecom space, a lot of telco providers use this solution, but from my perspective, it is not very user friendly. It is a bit more laborious. There are still too many human touchpoints. There can be a little bit more automation. It would also be good to integrate it with other tools. Integration is quite difficult, especially in the telco space."
"Reporting could be improved along with the option to create more fine tuned reports and to create specific fields for each type of ticket."
"Hyphens are not allowed in the quick search bar. This has created a problem in our environment where we use hyphens in our asset names."
"It would be nice if they added the ability to go directly to a form via a deep link URL."
"Connection to other softwares could be improved."
"There are other products that are more popular."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Cost was on par with other service desk products, and well below Remedy, while still being a BMC product."
"The licensing for FootPrints is a perpetual license with an annual support fee."
"This solution has good pricing."
"Our costs are well over $250,000."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Help Desk Software solutions are best for your needs.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise5
No data available
 

Also Known As

FootPrints Service Core
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cast & Crew
Orange, Huawei, T Mobile, eOn, Solid Trust Pay, G4S, Oxford University
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC FootPrints Service Core vs. LiveAgent and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.