Cherwell Service Management vs OpenText Service Manager [EOL] comparison

"Its integration features, orchestration features, and discovery tools are the most valuable. It is also pretty stable, and it can be as scalable as you want."

"All our activities are carried out in the one place."

"The dashboard and the reporting functionality are the solution's most valuable features."

"The dashboard is very useful to get a quick overview of current tasks."

"The most valuable features are problem management and change management."

"Clear processes with transparent responsibilities led to more efficiencies within the teams."

"The solution is simple to set up."

"It gives us better understanding and control of service management."

"Sometimes, customization is simple. The version we are using now has a nice interface."

"A valuable feature for us is that we have an ordered way to handle all the cases that we can handle with the infrastructure."

"The solution will streamline productivity and also improve automation. That would bring efficiency as well the ability to handle a big number of enterprise-wide service needs. Productivity and collaborative capabilities are some of the key benefits."

"Technical support is pretty good."

"It's mostly so reliable and has a lot of functionality. We're using a lot of HPE tools and we can do a lot with it. So, its functionality is the most valuable feature."

"We can have all our requests and incidents registered in one system."

"Areas for improvement would be the service catalog and customer catalog, which is not very user-friendly. The shopping cart experience is also terrible - you submit and go straight to the cart, you can't continue shopping or see your overall cost."

"Access is only available if we're on VPN."

"Application service mapping, GRC, SecOps, and things like that need improvement."

"The stability, specifically in the on-premises deployment model, could be improved."

"Service Manager would be improved with access to automation."

"I think one area which is the most painful from my point of view is if you need to integrate a lot of the tools, and being able to make that a lot more seamless."

"Their end-user interface and technical support features could be improved."

"There's a lot of manual work, which is error prone and time consuming, in how the code gets transported from one system to the other."

"It, still, has a bit of more of improvement possibilities in the codeless part. But, I can see that they are working on it, so that's quite good as well."

"Service Manager is at the end of its life. The architecture, performance, and look are all way behind."

"We aren't able to take emails that come in and turn them into tickets, especially when it comes to attachments. When an email has an attachment, like a screenshot, it is a very cumbersome process, and it does not work very well. I shouldn't have been paying technicians to cut and paste attachments from an email into the ticketing system. It should do that automatically. Other solutions are able to do that. This is something that needs to be improved. Test manager and knowledge management areas are probably amongst the worst parts of this solution. We try to use this solution for knowledge management, but it is not user-friendly. Therefore, it has limited ROI as you need to spend time to try and fully capitalize on the knowledge management system."

"The solution does not interface well with other products and is difficult to implement."

"For an ITIL user, the cost is probably about 50 bucks a month."

"The license is not cheap."

"HP Service Manager has moderate pricing."

"I would say that identify your requirements and pay for the support to implement and test those requirements, and then hope that you did a good job because the cost of their service is fairly expensive."

"I pay for Service Manager on a yearly basis, and the price is reasonable - I would rate it five out of ten."

"Micro Focus Service Manager is a little cheaper than other options. You have to pay a monthly subscription fee."