We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why
Get our free report covering ServiceNow, ManageEngine, Zendesk, and other competitors of JIRA Service Management. Updated: January 2022.
563,148 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of JIRA Service Management alternatives and competitors

IT Service Delivery at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
Customizable, easy to manage using a single dashboard, but the features in my version are quite basic
Pros and Cons
  • "Infraon Desk is very flexible in nature and can be customized for my needs. The fact that I can customize it the way I want is the best part of the tool for me."
  • "Better connectivity and integration with more collaborative platforms would be helpful."

What is our primary use case?

This product is used for our entire IT ticketing system.

We are now going to be using a module for IT asset management and I have started working with incident management. In two weeks from now, when we transition to version 3.0, I will be implementing change and problem management functionality.

We have three departments that use the same ticketing tool.

How has it helped my organization?

One of the reasons that I chose this product is that it's a Pink Elephant-certified tool. It has pretty much every module for ITIL processes.

I find the graphical user interface to be pretty comfortable because it's been customized as per my needs. It displays the information that I require and how I would like to see it.

The product is user-friendly, simple to use, and very lightweight. Compared to other tools, it is very fast. With a single click, I can bring up a dashboard with everything displayed the way I want it. Overall, it's pretty easy to use.

Prior to using Infraon Desk, I was using email to support our customers. I would receive an email request and I would respond the same way. I also dealt with support contractors via email and all of these emails were recorded in both directions. For each issue, we had to keep track of who sent the emails, what the ticket was for, and what support was provided.

Once this tool was implemented, I moved everything to it. However, the transition was easy for my customers because they are still able to send emails to create tickets. I did not want them to have to move to another method of requesting support if they were already used to something. I still have the same support mailbox and the customers use it, as well as the dev team. What changed is that I convert the emails to tickets when they come in.

To this point, I have not come across any security issues. Maybe once I start using the IT asset management module, CMDB data management, and the self-service portal, I will see whether I come across any problems. So far, I have had no incidents and things have been secure.

What is most valuable?

Infraon Desk is very flexible in nature and can be customized for my needs. The fact that I can customize it the way I want is the best part of the tool for me. The customization took longer than I expected to complete, although it may be the team that I was interacting with. They might not have had enough manpower in place. If enough resources are available then the customization is easy.

All of the information that I need for monitoring the entire platform is available on a single dashboard. This is very helpful with respect to managing.

The multi-channel ticketing options that this solution provides are very important to us because it's all about how we engage with our customers and what options we offer for them to communicate with us. Nowadays, there are many collaborative platforms and many methods for ticket logging. Every system of this type should be flexible enough to provide a mobile app, at least for Android and iOS, and not be confined to using Windows alone. Similarly, self-service portals as well as integration with Slack, as this product has, are important options that many people use. 

What needs improvement?

The version that I am using is very basic and I wouldn't say that it has extraordinary services capabilities that I've never seen before. I think that when I move to the improved platform in version 3, I might see more enhancements. My experience with version 1.0 is that it is not very extreme in terms of functionality.

Better connectivity and integration with more collaborative platforms would be helpful.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using Infraon Desk for approximately two and a half years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

For the upcoming migration to version 3.0, there is a two-week period allotted and there is a four-day interruption anticipated. However, this is not confirmed yet.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We use Infraon across three departments, and it functions using a similar workflow for all three. That said, the requests may arrive in a different way. For example, a request going to one department may be different if it is an application request versus a customer service request. The latter might require more user-friendliness.

At this point, we only allow access to Infraon Desk from within the organization. As such, I have not explored options such as SLA tracking for third parties. It is my in-house technicians that use it, primarily. 90% of the users are IT and the other 10% is made up of various roles.

I don't expect that our usage will increase, at least in terms of needing to purchase additional licenses. Once the self-service portal is released and is used in production, I expect that between 14,000 and 20,000 people will explore it.

How are customer service and technical support?

The post-installation support is flexible and very good. They're ready to support me when it comes to upgrades, and when I want further customization done, they help me with it.

I have not been in contact with support for reasons other than implementation, customization, and upgrades.

Overall, they are pretty supportive. I get responses from them, irrespective of the time or day of the week. I am happy with the support that I get.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

In my 14 years of experience, I have used every ticketing system that is available on the market. I started with CA Unicenter and have since had experience with products such as Jira, Remedyforce, ServiceNow, Kaseya, and others. 

ServiceNow was my first choice and Infraon Desk is similar, although it is more customizable. Infraon Desk was the best choice for my budget, considering the features and customization that I wanted. It is also lightweight and with all things considered, it is the best choice for me.

In my previous company, I was using Infraon as a network monitoring tool, rather than as a ticketing tool. Prior to using Infraon Desk, the support tickets at this company were done manually via email. 

How was the initial setup?

We had a couple of discussions with the vendor team and I explained to them what was required in our workflow, as well as what our customers require. They gave me a heads-up as to what could be done, what couldn't be done, and exactly what aspects could be completed only to a certain extent. In general, I didn't find that there were any challenges and what was discussed initially was there in the final product.

The length of time for deployment, which included requirements gathering, was approximately a month and a half. Our strategy involved launching it and then slowly upgrading and customizing it to match our requirements.

My first goal was email-to-ticket conversion, where I had the support tickets on the platform, rather than sitting in my mailbox. After this, I worked on customizing the dashboard, and then the solution went live. There were initially one or two dashboards.

Once it was in production, I thought about the service catalog for the different teams within IT. I customized the workflow and the goal of it was to have a single, plain workflow for each incident. Defining the SLAs was the final step.

What about the implementation team?

I was the person responsible for the implementation. It was only myself on this site and there were perhaps two or three people from the vendor on the backend.

We did not use a third party to assist with deployment. However, I did originally make contact with Infraon through a consulting group named AspireNXT.

The people at AspireNXT are very good and I have been working with them since I started the company. When there is a gap in understanding with Infraon, for example, they fill it for me.

What was our ROI?

We have seen a return on investment although we have not compiled an official report to assess it.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The price of this solution is reasonable and it was well within my budget. There was a front-end implementation charge in addition to our standard enterprise licensing fee.

What other advice do I have?

I am currently working on Version 1.0 but in two weeks, the company will be upgraded to version 3.0. It has much more advanced features available and the upgrade is already in progress.

One of the features that I am looking forward to in the latest version is the chatbot. Having a bot say "Hi", and then take the inputs and automatically raising a ticket is something that will be very helpful. 

My advice for anybody who is considering this product is to explore it. Many people have not tried it and instead, implemented something that they have used before, or have heard about, such as ServiceNow. I also did this but after exploring Infraon Desk, I was confident that it could do everything that I wanted. I definitely recommend it.

To summarize, I'm entirely happy with the product. That said, I can't rate it perfect because of the features that are currently unavailable in the version that I am using.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Vadim Tomkevich
Project Manager, Manager of ITSM Consulting Team at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 10
Great end-to-end business flow automation with helpful modules and good stability
Pros and Cons
  • "There are lots of modules around IT service management such as IT business management and human resource management (HRC)."
  • "They need to be providing vendors and implementation partners with materials and guidance on implementation."

What is most valuable?

One of the benefits of the platform itself is that it's not covering IT service management only. It, for example, has price service management functionality. 

There are lots of modules around IT service management such as IT business management and human resource management (HRC). Bigger clients, enterprises, are often looking for end-to-end business flow automation. Part of those processes, in other cases, are standalone solutions. The ability to implement end-to-end flows, including business ones, is the most important aspect of the solution.

What needs improvement?

I sometimes try to compare ServiceNow with Micro Focus. When I worked with Micro Focus or HPE, I liked how they communicate with partners, how they provide materials. ServiceNow really does lots of things in this area, however, there is definitely some space for improvement there. For instance, some workshop materials, et cetera, are lacking. They need to be providing vendors and implementation partners with materials and guidance on implementation.

The solution is mostly on the cloud. On-premises implementations are more difficult. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using ServiceNow for the last five years. I remember my first implementation project was in 2017. Probably before that, I started using ServiceNow and did the training, et cetera.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is pretty good. On average, I don't see many clients complaining about the performance side of stability or availability on the platform.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We did some cases to improve server functionality with scaling. We created clusters. In terms of the scalability of ServiceNow itself, several instances of ServiceNow with synchronization, et cetera, as well as performance, I don't recall scaling so much. In most cases, it's not really required as one instance of ServiceNow is good enough for most clients. They also handle all this backup, monitoring, and et cetera, internally. 

How are customer service and technical support?

I rarely deal with technical support, as, most often at least, I focus our innovation on implementation projects. Support is more active when it's implemented already and rolled out to production. Other personnel from my department handle that, for sure. From my understanding, in terms of the quality of the support,  it's quite typical. Sometimes it could be better and faster. However, if we can imagine the flow of those tickets for the ServiceNow support side, I would imagine it's quite big. Therefore, I'd say that it's acceptable and understandable.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I also work with Atlassian's Jira Service Desk. I used to work with Service Manager five years ago.

For ServiceNow, I really like it's a single platform. Everything within the platform is integrated already. There are quite rich integration capabilities with other systems at the client-side. For Micro Focus, you can install it in the cloud or on-premises. ServiceNow doesn't really allow you to install anything on-premises. 

On the Micro Focus side, some of their products were really great, such as Universal CMDB or UCMDB. At some point, it's still better than the current ServiceNow CMDB. Some single individual products from Micro Focus were really great for me. However, in some cases, when you come into a client and try to solve a complex task, you need to map the requirements to particular products. For Micro Focus, sometimes it was problematic as you required many products solving more or less the same purposes. At ServiceNow, each module is quite unique and serving its unique purpose. It's more like LEGOs. 

With Micro Focus, I remember in some cases, their solutions were quite resource-consuming. It's pretty predictable since HPE at the time was both a software and hardware vendor. It was good for them to sell software plus hardware. Sometimes it was how to understand why particular software could consume so many resources. That's not a problem with ServiceNow at all as it's on the cloud mostly.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is pretty clear. If we try to compare the implementation of some traditional modules, like incident management, request fulfillment, it's an industry standard. It's very good. ServiceNow, from a functionality and partner support perspective, has lots of materials. However, when it comes to some newer modules, some ITBM applications, et cetera, sometimes when they just release the first version of the module, and it might be a bit different from a functionality perspective. There's a lack of documentation and support. That's quite typical. I feel like Hewlett-Packard pays a bit more attention to that.

What about the implementation team?

We're implementors. We implement the solution for our clients.

What was our ROI?

ServiceNow is still mostly used as an ITSM platform. And IT service management mostly feeds some kind of internal purposes. It's not a business-related platform. It's supposed to save money, not to help to earn money.

Some clients come in to get some help with the reimplementation of a platform. Others are looking for certain improvements to the existing platform. In some cases, it's a greenfield implementation. For greenfield implementations, especially when it comes to big enterprises, the question behind the scenes is we don't really understand how much we spend on IT. There are likely many unrelated budgets, which are not even visible. The first question is how much you really spend. And if they get an answer to this question, it's already a good achievement. 

Over time, we baseline the spending and we implement new functionality and new processes, new modules. In some cases, it's quite expensive compared to the business itself. By that, I mean, the processes we implement. We may have 20 people doing some job and if you look at their salaries for a couple of years, it's a lot. We come in and implement and automate the process for them, and in those cases, it might be five years of salaried budget saved. However, that's years. You won't see the savings immediately. It will be something witnessed over time.

What other advice do I have?

We're a ServiceNow partner. We help to implement ServiceNow for our clients.

We're working on likely the latest version of the solution. ServiceNow provides upgrades two times a year. Previous versions get obsolete so that you can't actually use them.

I often see that people tend to simplify things and they expect any system, no matter if it's ServiceNow or any other system or platform from the area, that the implementation would solve the entire ATSM matter. However, in fact, with ATSM, it's about products, people, processes, and partners. All the efforts should be covered. No solution is a silver bullet.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. it's a very good solution, however, there's always room for improvement.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Manager at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
Stable, easy to install, and cost effective, but it needs better integration and data management
Pros and Cons
  • "The two most valuable features are the portal and reporting."
  • "It needs better integration with other tools like Jira."

What is our primary use case?

We are using it as a technical support incident management for our external customers. We use it internally to track for incident management. We use it for the customer portal and reporting.

How has it helped my organization?

It allows us to manage our customer's incidents for trouble tickets.

What is most valuable?

The two most valuable features are the portal and reporting. 

They're basic and they're basic requirements too. The functionality is basic, but those are minimal requirements for us.

What needs improvement?

It needs better integration with other tools like Jira. Better reporting and better data management are also needed.

I believe the way they're structured is the flat file. So it'd be better if they actually used a database for the data storage, and a more robust portal.

I would like more flexible reporting.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for one year, but the company has been using it for three years.

It's a hosted solution.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We are using this solution very extensively and the stability is fine. It's good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is not good. We have 30 agents and we are supporting approximately 3000 customers.

The agents are what we are paying for, and the customers come through the portal. Customers are not full agents.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is okay. I would rate them a seven out of ten.

They're very responsive and they're knowledgeable of the product.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Previously, we were using Jira.

Jira has that help desk function, but it's mainly a workflow tool. It doesn't really offer a customer view of the tickets. So, it's not really an incident management tool. It's more of a workflow management tool. 

Jira is a good product, but I just think as a service desk tool, it's not designed for it.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was relatively straightforward. It's a pretty straightforward, basic tool. There's not a lot of complexity to it.

It took two months to deploy. It takes two people to deploy and maintain.

What about the implementation team?

We did not use an implementor or consultant.

What was our ROI?

Absolutely, we have seen a return on our investment.

It gave us the functionality we were looking for. It allows us to track our incidents in a manageable way and to be able to better communicate with our customers. So it's worth the cost.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The price is approximately $70 per agent, per month.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We are currently looking at other products to switch to.

What other advice do I have?

It's a very cost-effective solution, but it's not robust. 

If the price is a concern, this is a good tool. If you're looking for more functionality, it's not a great tool. You get what you pay for. Again, it's a good tool but it's limited.

It has limited integration functionality and it has limited reporting, but I don't think it advertises itself to be anything more than it is.

It's a lower-cost product, and it does what it says it will do.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Umair (Abu Mohaymin) Akhlaque
Enterprise Solutions & Services Head at Duroob Technologies
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
While it's one of the strongest on-prem solutions, support and development have fallen off since it changed owners
Pros and Cons
  • "Clarity is flexible to implement and integrate. It gives the developer or consultant a broad space to work and customize based on what the customers want."
  • "Clarity tech support has gotten worse since Broadcom acquired CA Technologies. We're not getting the support we've come to expect as a large enterprise. Clarity's support needs to improve, or it's going to lose market share."

What is our primary use case?

We are a partner with CA Technologies, and we've done major implementations of Clarity for around 40 to 50 different customers of various sizes. Some are small, while others have a massive infrastructure running multiple instances of the CA Service Desk. It's deployed exclusively on-premises, and that's one of the reasons CA is losing market share: It doesn't offer a cloud solution.

Our customers implement Clarity for incident, change, process, configuration, and problem management. The service catalog is another popular feature they use. Clarity offers process automation as well. You can make multiple dynamic workflows to compile or integrate those processes. 

What is most valuable?

Clarity is flexible to implement and integrate. It gives the developer or consultant a broad space to work and customize based on what the customers want. It adopts native languages as well. 

What needs improvement?

So far, the only complaint from customers has been Clarity's user experience. Unfortunately, clarity's UX cannot compare with most modern enterprise service desk solutions. In the last couple of years since Broadcom acquired CA, they've put less effort into developing CA's product line. They aren't coming up with new features or refining the user experience. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Clarity's performance is solid. It's a highly stable solution.

How are customer service and support?

Clarity tech support has gotten worse since Broadcom acquired CA Technologies. We're not getting the support we've come to expect as a large enterprise. Clarity's support needs to improve, or it's going to lose market share.

How was the initial setup?

Generally speaking, Clarity's installation is relatively straightforward. Then again, it depends on how big the architecture is. If it's simple, implementation will take you a couple of hours. But if you have a vast infrastructure with multiple databases and application servers and want to enable the mobile app, it can get a bit complicated.

The amount of technical staff required also depends on the size of the implementation. If it's a small job, one consultant can handle it. But if it's a more extensive implementation with different process owners and stakeholders of the company taking part, then you need multiple consultants.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Clarity offers a perpetual license. Customers purchase the license once and then pay for maintenance. CA provides a subscription model as well. Both models are available for our customers.

What other advice do I have?

Compared to other modern IDSM tools, I rate Clarity six out of 10. My advice to people thinking about implementing Clarity is to first take stock of their budget. Second, they should consider what processes they're looking for. Third, they need to think about whether they want a cloud platform or on-prem. 

If they plan to go on-prem, Clarity is one of the best solutions. If they want a cloud solution, Clarity isn't right for them. They can try out some other tools. If they have a big budget, Service Now is a good option. If they are in the mid-range, they should go for something like JIRA or 4Me. While 4Me is a newer solution, it has some appealing features.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Flag as inappropriate
Mykola Shved
Head of Global IT Delivery at Acino Pharma AG
Real User
Top 20
Offers a complete set of features and allows us to set up different service functions in the same platform
Pros and Cons
  • "CMDB as a baseline, incident management, service request management, and license management are valuable features. It offers really interesting features for complete use in an enterprise. You have one platform, and you could set up different service functions for HR, engineering, or another team in the same platform."
  • "Its reporting could be improved. The current list of predefined reports seems to be fine for most of the customers, but there should be some tools to allow us to create highly customized reports for measuring different KPIs. We should also be able to connect some kind of BI to it. We haven't yet implemented it, and we are currently evaluating it. We are looking for advanced integration options where we could integrate it with our SCCM and Azure environments as well as with other Office solutions. For direct communication with customers, we are looking for a chatbot or a similar feature."

What is our primary use case?

I have only used its demo version for evaluation. We haven't yet implemented it. I have been playing with ServiceDesk Plus for incident management, service request management, and some change request workflows. There is also a CMDB, which seems to be quite good. 

What is most valuable?

CMDB as a baseline, incident management, service request management, and license management are valuable features. It offers really interesting features for complete use in an enterprise. You have one platform, and you could set up different service functions for HR, engineering, or another team in the same platform.

What needs improvement?

Its reporting could be improved. The current list of predefined reports seems to be fine for most of the customers, but there should be some tools to allow us to create highly customized reports for measuring different KPIs. We should also be able to connect some kind of BI to it.

We haven't yet implemented it, and we are currently evaluating it. We are looking for advanced integration options where we could integrate it with our SCCM and Azure environments as well as with other Office solutions. For direct communication with customers, we are looking for a chatbot or a similar feature.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We haven't checked its stability under a heavy load.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Currently, around ten users are evaluating it. It should meet the needs of around 2,500 users. From my point of view, it seems suitable for our needs.

How are customer service and technical support?

We had lots of discussions via email and the internal support chat, and everything was fine.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We are currently using OTRS. We are looking for something similar to ServiceNow but much cheaper. I have almost 15 years of experience working with ServiceNow, which is a great solution, but it is too expensive for companies with less than 5,000 employees. I have also worked with HP Service Desk almost 20 years ago.

How was the initial setup?

Being a cloud solution, it is straightforward. There are no issues. In terms of deployment, it is similar to other cloud solutions. The workload begins when you try to customize a CMDB, but this is not because of the solution. It is because of internal processes.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

For 90 service agents and our need for a cloud solution with incident management and service request management, it annually costs around 12,000. If you need additional development or deployment support from the vendor, there might be an additional cost.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We are currently evaluating this solution. ServiceDesk Plus is one of the candidates. We are also evaluating Jira Service Desk and BMC. It seems that all these three vendors will be able to fulfill our requirements, and we will choose ServiceDesk Plus.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus an eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Other
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Get our free report covering ServiceNow, ManageEngine, Zendesk, and other competitors of JIRA Service Management. Updated: January 2022.
563,148 professionals have used our research since 2012.