We performed a comparison between Clarity SM and JIRA Service Management 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 database and the power that is driven behind the database."
"It has allowed us to be more efficient in our problem and change management processes and procedures."
"It is the most stable product in the market."
"It improves our service delivery process. We're more efficient. We're leveraging the ticketing system, which is always more efficient, so we can measure and improve."
"We especially like the look of xFlow. That looks very personal, so they can keep track of how things are going with their ticket, if it has been worked on, what the status of it is. It seems to be a little more user friendly. The user can see more from a distance right away."
"Self-service interface means people can check their own tickets."
"Right now, we are starting to be dependent on the CMDB a lot."
"As of late, I really like the BI functions."
"The flow of the reports is good."
"The most valuable features are the management tools."
"Jira Service Management is flexible. It is easy to navigate without requiring extra learning. The user experience has been good."
"Easy to use and user-friendly."
"JIRA helps integrate Kanban Board features and for this reason what it does it does well."
"One of the valuable features is that an automatic response or action can be taken on tickets."
"It has improved our work in a number of ways. First, it has made everything much faster. Before Jira Service Management, it could take weeks to resolve a ticket."
"The dashboards in Jira have been the most useful feature."
"The interface for the users is a bit old-fashioned and not user-friendly."
"Nowadays every person is used to an interface that is more user-friendly and this one is not so user-friendly maybe due to the fact that, if you need to let people customize everything, sometimes you lose out on a clean user experience."
"Right now, you have to create the Scoreboards individually for roles or users. If they could separate that functionality, and create the scoreboards separately, and then just link scoreboards to roles and users - that way you could reuse the same ones - that would be a huge benefit. I know, because they're a nightmare to manage at times."
"We need a mobile solution. We are not using any mobile functionality for the product, but we think that this necessary."
"I would like to see the API cleaned up."
"The monitoring tool is in need of improvement."
"The interface is pretty straightforward, but I think for some end-users a little more simplified user interface would help."
"I am not able to see tickets on a bigger scale. I can't see the overall bigger picture."
"The solution needs to be integrated better with Office X5."
"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."
"In general, JIRA has no relation to customers or financials. Therefore, marketplace add-ons are needed to make it work for customer-facing systems."
"It is pretty complex to move between the test environment and the production environment. There is potential for improvement."
"During the updates, when another version gets released, whatever I am tracking at that time gets lost and I have to type it all over again."
"Every time there's a problem with JIRA Service Management, you have to have a look at how to solve it, and there's always a feature request or the feature request on the solution is too large and the development cycles are too slow."
"Include a split configuration in a layer part to allow cloud services to have almost full admin rights in SaaS."
"In the Turkish market, the biggest problem is that they are looking for a server type of solution, but when it comes to Jira Service Management, Atlassian is a remote type of license. There are just two different options, data center and cloud."
Clarity SM is ranked 23rd in Help Desk Software with 107 reviews while JIRA Service Management is ranked 2nd in Help Desk Software with 73 reviews. Clarity SM is rated 7.8, while JIRA Service Management is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Clarity SM writes "Quite good back-end architecture for end users but the API is very, very bad". On the other hand, the top reviewer of JIRA Service Management writes "Customizable, stable, and integrates well". Clarity SM is most compared with ServiceNow, BeyondTrust Remote Support, OpenText Service Management Automation X (SMAX), IBM Maximo and ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus, whereas JIRA Service Management is most compared with ServiceNow, ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus, BMC Helix ITSM, Freshdesk and PagerDuty Operations Cloud. See our Clarity SM vs. JIRA Service Management 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.
