We performed a comparison between IBM Maximo and Micro Focus Service Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Asset Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The most valuable feature is asset management maintenance as well as asset management overall."
"We were doing all kinds of paperwork for every type of order and to maintain our assets but with the use of the IBM Maximo application, we can automate a lot of the processes."
"The most valuable features of IBM Maximo are the overall power and interface, and there are a lot of different modules that we use that are helpful. Additionally, it's an integrated solution and it has a lot of capabilities."
"The most valuable features are the ability to create work orders and preventative maintenance."
"I have found Work Order management the most valuable feature. Additionally, it is a very robust and powerful solution."
"There are not many enterprise asset management systems on the market and not many that have the categories that IBM Maximo has."
"They have a real strength of tracking the asset itself along with the condition of the asset, the maintenance of the asset and who has access to the asset, etc."
"IBM Maximo is the best software for assets management."
"It's easy to scale."
"The solution is simple to set up."
"Service Manager does what it should, but it's quite outdated."
"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."
"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."
"Sometimes, customization is simple. The version we are using now has a nice interface."
"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."
"Areas for improvement would be the user interface and support for Arabic. They could also be more customer-oriented."
"There are always ways to improve and make things better."
"IBM Maximo can improve the financial support and financial application, to make it more similar to an ERP as opposed to an EAM. Overall they can improve the financial processes."
"IBM is a big company and they have a lot of products. Level One, the first level of tech support, is the one that is used to stop the tsunami. For everyone, it's always work to get past that."
"The solution is not stable. We can have one day when it is stable and another day it is not. Sometimes it crashes or becomes very slow, and there are times we are not even able to download all the databases. Without the database, we cannot work on that application. These are the small glitches, and stability issues we are facing."
"Initial setup is a longer process because Maximo is bigger and has more processes."
"Could use some alignment regarding some standards and the tracking of the IT assets. Even though they have all of the information (i.e. where are the assets, who owns the asset, etc.), they were not mapping it to different cyber standards."
"This solution could improve by integrating or embedding finances, charts of accounts, and invoicing."
"The interface could be better."
"Customization can be difficult at times because scripting is often required."
"I don't see anything lacking."
"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 think the best recommendation to Micro Focus would be to increase awareness and the marketing for this product."
"Service Manager is at the end of its life. The architecture, performance, and look are all way behind."
"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."
Service Manager on SaaS provides you with a cloud-based, industry leading IT Service Management solution.
IBM Maximo is ranked 1st in Enterprise Asset Management with 8 reviews while Micro Focus Service Manager is ranked 13th in IT Service Management (ITSM) with 7 reviews. IBM Maximo is rated 8.6, while Micro Focus Service Manager is rated 6.8. The top reviewer of IBM Maximo writes "A rare enterprise asset management system with good ROI and helpful technical support". 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". IBM Maximo is most compared with ServiceNow, JIRA Service Management, IFS Applications, ABB Ability Asset Suite EAM and Mainsaver CMMS, whereas Micro Focus Service Manager is most compared with ServiceNow, JIRA Service Management, ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus, BMC Helix ITSM and TOPdesk.
We monitor all Enterprise Asset Management 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.