"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."
"The most valuable features are problem management and change management."
"The solution is simple to set up."
"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."
"Micro Focus Service Manager is fine. It's a good solution for small accounts with minimal reporting. Micro Focus is a good option because you don't have to worry about the budget."
"Sometimes, customization is simple. The version we are using now has a nice interface."
"Incident management is the most valuable because we're using it to manage tickets for an accounting system. With the reports that are available, it allows us to track and identify trends at the type and item level. It also helps us in managing the workload better than what we had in Remedy, which is what we were using before 2013."
"Service Manager does what it should, but it's quite outdated."
"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."
"Application service mapping, GRC, SecOps, and things like that need improvement."
"Customization can be difficult at times because scripting is often required."
"I think the best recommendation to Micro Focus would be to increase awareness and the marketing for this product."
"Micro Focus Service Manager is not very great. It would be better if it had more features. When it comes to features, BMC tops the chart. When it comes to usage, people use BMC more."
"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."
"I don't see anything lacking."
"Service Manager is at the end of its life. The architecture, performance, and look are all way behind."
Service Manager on SaaS provides you with a cloud-based, industry leading IT Service Management solution.
Cherwell Service Management is ranked 27th in Help Desk Software with 2 reviews while Micro Focus Service Manager is ranked 17th in Help Desk Software with 6 reviews. Cherwell Service Management is rated 7.0, while Micro Focus Service Manager is rated 6.6. The top reviewer of Cherwell Service Management writes "A scalable solution with good discovery, integration, and orchestration features, but application service mapping, GRC, and SecOps need improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus Service Manager writes "Streamlines productivity and is able to handle a big number of enterprise-wide service needs". Cherwell Service Management is most compared with ServiceNow, BMC Helix ITSM, Ivanti Service Desk , JIRA Service Management and SCSM, whereas Micro Focus Service Manager is most compared with ServiceNow, JIRA Service Management, ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus, BMC Helix ITSM and IBM Maximo. See our Cherwell Service Management vs. Micro Focus Service Manager report.
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.