Cherwell Service Management vs OpenText Service Manager [EOL] comparison

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

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

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

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

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

"Technical support is pretty good."

"The design has been revamped in terms of GUI. The current interface is quite easy to read."

"It's easy to scale."

"Service Manager does what it should, but it's quite outdated."

"It helps to register things, to see the changing parts, and to correlate incidents."

"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's best features are flexibility and customizability."

"The solution is simple to set up."

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

"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."

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

"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."

"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."

"Pure cloud-based native functionality is lacking."

"I don't see anything lacking."

"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."

"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."

"There should be some front desk provided or some options to let our users serve themselves, because we have about 5000 servers and 400 applications."

"It needs to be easier to use for the end users because one problem we had was that we are handling different kinds of cases."

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

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

"The license is not cheap."

"HP Service Manager has moderate pricing."

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

"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."