We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why
Get our free report covering BMC, Microsoft, Pega, and other competitors of ServiceNow. Updated: January 2022.
563,780 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of ServiceNow alternatives and competitors

Project Manager/Product Owner at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Good SLA options and reporting features but is not easy to set up
Pros and Cons
  • "It has good management, the ability to sign tickets based on content, the multi-channel support, the self service portal, the integration with Salesforce, the setup process, and the product features as we are currently using them."
  • "It wasn't easy to set up so we're only using a third of all of the features,"

What is our primary use case?

We are in support. Zendesk is being used by the IT group help desk and also by our team. We are an internal team that supports SharePoint, Salesforce and Tableau. So we use it for tickets for customers' issues. And then of course I see folks use it for the help desk for everyone else internally.

What is most valuable?

In terms of the most valuable features, we like the SLA options and the reporting feature because it runs a report.

Additionally, it has good management, the ability to sign tickets based on content, multi-channel support, the self-service portal, the integration with Salesforce, the setup process, and the product features as we are currently using them.

We go in there and we set up our requests for how we want it for each of our groups, meaning for the Salesforce team, and so forth. And then we change it accordingly, adding different features or attributes based on the need, and then run reports.

What needs improvement?

In terms of what could be improved, it was not easy to set up so we're only using a third of all of the features, and we wanted something that was easier to configure and set up. I asked my director how come we don't just keep Zendesk because it doesn't cost anything, we're already paying for the file. Why would we turn around and buy a Cadillac, like ServiceNow for IT? He said because we're only using some of the features. We don't have anyone who has the skill set to do the configuration. And the way the service model is with ServiceNow, we have a team that uses it in our organization. So we have the internal expertise instead of relying on a vendor for support.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Zendesk Guide for probably three years. I believe we've been on the Core Optimization package.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Zendesk has been very stable. Which is why I was trying to understand why we were switching. The director said that there are other features that we want that ServiceNow offers and Zendesk doesn't. So instead of me learning about the new features, he wanted to go with ServiceNow from an infrastructure standpoint.

We are a service IT company. We have Zendesk for our employees internally and for external folks, but it's just used internally and ServiceNow is being used as a practice for external customers. They are also using it at ProKarma. They have the means so that experts can set up whatever we need. The director made a decision to go over and start using ServiceNow internally instead of Zendesk. I think he was more interested in ServiceNow from a roadmap perspective.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

In terms of scalability, that wasn't even something that we were considering, just that there were so many things that ServiceNow does that Zendesk doesn't from an IT infrastructure perspective. And we were looking at those features for future-state from the roadmap, security, asset management, and so forth.

We only have about 24 people interfacing with Zendesk. They are admin or developers. Then there's a few BA who are mostly either engineer support for the help desk IT or they  belong to one of those internal groups that we support, Salesforce developers, SharePoint developers, or Tableau developers and architects. These are the people who need to resolve the tickets when there's an issue.

How was the initial setup?

Our IT director set it up. He said he has some basic things in there, a very simple workflow, an SLA, a change management, and I do a few reports. I have a couple of things where I set up the processes so that certain things get kicked back to IT to follow up on. But he said he set up something that was very simple and basic, and it's working for him. But he knew that there were more features that he should be using but he didn't know how to use them. And then we found out from the vendor that there were a lot of features that were grandfathered in and we're not even utilizing those features. At that point I think he made a decision that from an infrastructure perspective there are other features that he wanted that ServiceNow provides that Zendesk doesn't. I think it was more on the infrastructure and security sides.

We are still in a contract with Zendesk until the end of the year. And then they will make the decision whether to switch or extend the contract. So nothing has been done at this point. 

It took less than three months to set up, maybe about eight weeks.

I don't know about the deployment because they haven't made any significant changes. All I know is it took about eight weeks to create the processes and the flows that we currently have.

What about the implementation team?

We did the implementation and maybe used some internal resources to set it up.

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

The licensing is yearly and it's less than 30 grand, I believe. We had a lot of things that were grandfathered in, so we were using a lot of things - Zendesk Guide Professional, Zendesk Explore Professional, Zendesk Gather Professional and Zendesk Sunshine Lite. All of these things are not being leveraged today. So it looks like we were just using Zendesk Support Enterprise, and the vendor was sharing with us basically what we had and what we were using.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

You really need to know how you are trying to service your customers to make a decision on whether or not to go with it. We were looking at three products, ServiceNow, Zendesk and Service Cloud. And you wanted the infrastructure component, the Cadillac version, right? All three different, too. That was another thing you really need to know - what are your requirements? What are your needs? And also look at your future roadmap. To me, those should have been the driving factors for making a decision. Just to clarify, those three solutions are the possible replacements if we decide to phase out the Zendesk Guide. We were looking at Service Cloud and I don't know if we made a decision on it because we are already using Salesforce.

They have a help desk for it, but it came with a cost where you had to pay for every user who actually wanted to use it. We have 3000 or 4000 employees. They also had some type of restricted user license and that can be very expensive if the company is growing. But that would be good. It would be something just to follow up on to find out with ServiceNow. 

The total cost of ownership was a significant differentiator for Zendesk. I thought they were very reasonable. ServiceNow is very expensive, and adding each component every time you want to add a module and you're taking a lot of money. And they still decided to go with it.

One of the things that they showed me in ServiceNow is that they have an asset management component. That was pretty cool. So when you assign a computer to someone, they actually had a picture and they basically had a little card. Anyway, it was easy to click on and set up. I thought that would have been nice if they had some type of asset management component. I think we were using Salesforce to do asset management. Anything that's related to the HelpDesk, where they're tracking your device, your phone, that kind of stuff. So, it would be nice if that was included.

What other advice do I have?

To be honest with you, I thought Zendesk was a very good product. I didn't understand why we were moving to something else when we weren't using all of the features. Usually you use everything and then you outgrow that solution and look for a new solution. But to me that wasn't the case. So the biggest lesson for me was all three products. This is not an apple to apple comparison. You have to know what your requirements are and the roadmap, which is what I mentioned, but I didn't feel that Zendesk fell short at all. I felt management was making a decision without knowing what the future roadmap looked like. Meaning, when I say, "What do you want for the future?", "I don't know, but we are thinking about the infrastructure component" and then they decided to go off and do ServiceNow.

So I guess my lesson learned is to make sure your requirements and your future-state roadmap are all in alignment with your strategy. And I didn't feel that that was the case because I felt that they were making the decision without any ROI analysis to back it up. I'm being honest. That's how I felt. But I felt Zendesk didn't fall short. So what's the issue? And they just said, "We don't know how to do all of this stuff, and we already have an internal group that uses ServiceNow with the infrastructure components. So we're going to go with that product." I said, "it is going to cost a lot of money. They said they were okay with that. They thought that they could still bring down the cost based on their usage. And they went with it.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Zendesk Guide a seven.

To make it a ten, they should offer some more teachers to compete with the other folks for Help Desk, and other components like asset management. That was another thing that Service Cloud does. It's totally different. I had a feature matrix that showed me those comparisons. There was something that Service Cloud does that makes them more integrated. There was an issue with integration between Salesforce and Zendesk, but the vendor said they fixed that issue and now the integration should work. So that was another concern about just integrating with the internal tool, making sure it's an easier API connector, making it easier to integrate with other tools.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
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
IT Team Lead at a tech company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
Easy to use, helping us reduce costs by half
Pros and Cons
  • "We have a lot of automation running from our HR system to IT Care Center. When a ticket has been raised to us, we can notify hiring managers on the status of every employee. We also get notifications in Slack for every ticket opened."
  • "They should have full integration with SSO services, like Okta, creating a full service solution."

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use case for this solution is an IT ticketing system. We have a lot of entities within the company use this system, such as procurement, HR, legal, etc. IT also uses it for a few other projects like asset management, change management, or any ITSM model/method.

How has it helped my organization?

We have a lot of automation running from our HR system to IT Care Center. When a ticket has been raised to us, we can notify hiring managers on the status of every employee. We also get notifications in Slack for every ticket opened. 

IT Care Center has helped us simplify our IT service management. It is much simpler compared to the situation that we had before, e.g., designing a form, changing a form, doing a bit of adjustment, creating new categories, and onboarding new departments to IT Care Center.

We have reduced the number of tickets that we received based on IT Care Center analytics. I created a few dashboards for IT and the management teams. Therefore, I managed to reduce the number of tickets compared to last year and the previous year. The yearly reduction was approximately 10 to 15 percent each year. Every quarter, we are checking the tickets. For the top 10 categories, we are automating the top 10 pain points. So, if we have a lot of tickets for a specific app, then we are trying to automate them with a script. We are doing some pre-tasks. For example, if it's regarding new hires, we set everything in advance and have managed to decrease the number of new hires tickets by 10 to 20 tickets for the first three months of deployment.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable IT Care Center features are the ones that we requested especially for our environment. We have integrations with Slack. We also have integrations from our computer management systems that run daily and sync with IT Care Center.

I am using the APEX forms and entities. For example, when I want to design a special form for a special entity or department in the company, sometimes I go to the APEX and develop a form, workflows, schedules, emails, etc. I can develop these from scratch. ;When we moved from ServiceNow to IT Care Center, it was very important for us to have a system that we could develop ourselves. Because in ServiceNow, we had to develop everything with an external company, and we don't want dependencies.

We have tickets that are being closed with Canned Response. Once the ticket has been closed, we get an article to act/work on. This has reduced tickets, e.g., once a user receives a Canned Response, then they can save the link to the article, etc.

What needs improvement?

IT Care Center must improve the UI because it looks old-fashioned all the time. They must improve the design and maybe provide more admin training.

They should have full integration with SSO services, like Okta, creating a full service solution.

It is not responsive for mobile. Currently, it is half HTML and half browsing in mobile. The display is not suitable for use. This needs to be fixed. 

It would also be great to have more administration features because they only support Windows environments.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for two and a half years (since January 1st, 2019). 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is quite stable. We have had two or three downtimes since we started using it.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

IT Care Center is very scalable. If the company grows, it can support an increase of servers and resources.

900 people are end users of this solution in our organization, and 49 of them are administrators of it. 

How are customer service and technical support?

IT Care Center is very easy to use when it comes to flexibility and customization. I still need some support, like on really new features or stuff that I still don't know how to use, because there is a lot of work on the APEX platform. I can't do everything. However, from the two or three sessions that I had with the support, I learned to create and develop a form, workflows, etc.

IT Care Center's tech support was great for us during and after deployment. Every time that I needed help, they were available.

We have requested things from them that weren't on their roadmap.

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

We switched to IT Care Center from ServiceNow because we couldn't do anything with Service Now without professional support. The main reason that we selected That's IT: We did an RFI and received the best results from That's IT. 

With ServiceNow, we had to pay for every little thing. This costed a lot of money. With IT Care Center, it is one license and everything is paid.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was straightforward. We managed to move from the old system to the new one in two weeks. We exported all the data from the other system and loaded it into the new one. Creating the form, category, and entity were straightforward. 

What about the implementation team?

We implemented this solution with the help of a vendor. Overall, five people from their side and three or four from our IT department worked on deployment. 

What was our ROI?

We have seen a return on our investment with this solution based on the analytics that we have. We have a lot of dashboards. We managed to improve processes internally. We have a one stop shop for every solution.

We reduced our costs compared to our previous solution, which was really expensive. We managed to reduce costs by half by switching to IT Care Center, not including any professional services.

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

IT Care Center's price was in the middle, where Freshservice was the lowest and SysAid was the highest. The solution's price is fair. Regarding the value that we are getting from the system, it is a win-win situation for both sides. We have really contributed to them over the past few years when developing new integrations with the Slack onboarding system. 

Under the basic pricing model, there are no surprises. If you want something special, then you have to pay extra.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We evaluated SysAid and Freshservice. We didn't go with Freshservice because this solution wasn't mature enough for our environment. While SysAid was mature enough, the UI and workflows were quite complex. SysAid's price was also quite high.

What other advice do I have?

For our organization, it is important that all IT Care Center modules are included in a single license. If you are looking for a one stop shop, you don't want to pay every time for a new feature. You want the flexibility. If you are looking at an ITSM system that has a lot of out-of-the-box capabilities, you want everything in one place. If you want to implement a new model, you shouldn't have to pay for it. 

How you use IT Care Center will depend on how your organization builds. I saw some really nice projects and implementations on Microsoft environments that an admin developed from scratch, like working with APEX and building out of the portal. This product has a lot of capabilities. If you are using the out-of-the-box solution, then you must suit it to your organization. If you are building from scratch, it can do amazing things. 

I don't have any automations in IT Care Center. I have a few daily things running from our directory which sync all users to IT Care Center, but nothing like automated workflows yet.

I would rate this solution as a seven and a half or eight out of 10. 

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?

Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Senior Helpdesk at a non-profit with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
Good workflow automation capabilities, great price, and great user-friendliness
Pros and Cons
  • "I do like the workflow automation capabilities, where based upon certain actions, it will automatically go and route tickets to a particular person. It is fairly user-friendly."
  • "The ability to customize the user interface is a bit lacking, and the reporting is a bit lacking because they're very stringent upon what you can pull reporting-wise within Freshservice. They have a lot of built-in reports that are very nice, but when it comes to customizing these, they just provide you with certain data. When you try to build your own report wizard, you aren't able to go and select some of the data that is shown in some of the reports that come with Freshservice. This is something that we have brought up with our account representative, and we have suggested these as feature updates in the future. We're still waiting on them to go and implement something like that."

What is our primary use case?

It is a solution for help desk ticketing, as well as for knowledge base and inventory. We also deploy a fresh service agent that actually goes and gets installed on all of our PCs and any of our computer clients within the organization. That provides Freshservice with inventory information so that we can go and track assets.

I am currently using the most recent version of it. It is cloud-based, so it automatically updates. It is a public cloud, though it is accessed through Okta SAML single sign-on. It is private in that aspect. I have a feeling that their services are on an Amazon Web Services server, but I could be wrong.

How has it helped my organization?

It has greatly improved the process of ticket triaging. In previous organizations I worked with, I know that most of the services that they implemented did have these capabilities, but no one was willing to take on the time and effort to go and implement some of these automations within the service. Because I went and took the time to go and do so, having the ability to just go and have a ticket get created, and then automatically based upon certain criteria in the ticket information, get it routed to the correct person on the staff and to the right department, works wonders. It helps improve the turnaround time. As opposed to what typically would happen in previous organizations where a ticket gets submitted, and it just kind of goes into a general IT unassigned bucket, and you're just kind of waiting upon an internal sort of honor system where technicians are supposed to be looking at the unassigned tickets. When they're free, they are just going ahead and taking it upon themselves to go ahead and work on an issue. They do it based upon the severity or the priority of the user involved, as well as the timeliness of the turnaround time that's being required. That's kind of a flawed system because if people just want to take a rest, they just don't really want to pay attention to the unassigned queue, and then oftentimes, tickets get neglected. You end up possibly missing SLA times, whereas now, because it automatically gets wired to the right people, SLA times are almost always met because there is not this whole game of employees kind of playing chicken as to I don't want to take it and someone else should take it. We are not leaving it to an honor system as to having people take tickets.

What is most valuable?

I do like the workflow automation capabilities, where based upon certain actions, it will automatically go and route tickets to a particular person. It is fairly user-friendly.

What needs improvement?

The ability to customize the user interface is a bit lacking, and the reporting is a bit lacking because they're very stringent upon what you can pull reporting-wise within Freshservice. They have a lot of built-in reports that are very nice, but when it comes to customizing these, they just provide you with certain data. When you try to build your own report wizard, you aren't able to go and select some of the data that is shown in some of the reports that come with Freshservice. This is something that we have brought up with our account representative, and we have suggested these as feature updates in the future. We're still waiting on them to go and implement something like that.

Their support could be improved. In the user interface of their website, it can be a little bit difficult to navigate to get support. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using it for the past almost four years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The only hiccups I've seen are due to having integrated with Okta. We've run into some problems with the Okta integration, but that's because they're different systems, and whenever you're dealing with APIs trying to manage the connection between services, you do run into issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Its scalability seems good. We've more than doubled in size since we first implemented it. It has been able to handle that amount of growth. However, reporting and customization of the user interface for your different service catalog forms could be improved. Just the fact that they're not very customizable is a problem for further scalability, but for the price, it is pretty good. 

We have about 300 employees across all departments who use this solution. It is being extensively used at the moment in the organization. Its usage will increase even more with growth in the company. We're constantly adding new employees.

How are customer service and support?

That would actually be another area they can improve because I feel like the ability to go in and contact support is a little bit hidden in the user interface of their website. It can be a little bit difficult to navigate to get support. Once you do get a hold of them, the support reaction time is adequate. It is not the best I've seen, but they do generally respond within a day and a half. I would rate them a six out of 10.

How would you rate customer service and support?

Neutral

How was the initial setup?

It is fairly user-friendly. It is just when you're already kind of dealing with tickets coming in and you're the person in charge of dealing with the tickets and modifying the site and configuring it to where it becomes more useful for you, it gets difficult. That's because there are lots of ways to customize it. To make it as boisterous as what we've done is just time-consuming. You need to find the time to be able to go and utilize all their features. You just can't go and have it right off the bat configured because every organization is going to want to manage these things in a different manner. It's just time-consuming to go and configure all different features.

What about the implementation team?

They kind of just go over different features, and they do offer professional services, which I believe are a bit pricey. I have pretty much been figuring it on my own and reading up on my own to figure out how to do it.

I also take care of its maintenance. Technically, the backend stuff is handled by Freshservice themselves because it is a SaaS-based service. I just kind of handle administration of user accounts as well as the administration of the user interface and some of the different features, but the actual server is somewhere on Amazon. I'm guessing it is an Amazon Web Services server somewhere, and Freshservice is managing it.

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

Its price is great. Its pricing is supposedly a lot less than ServiceNow and other alternatives.

What other advice do I have?

It is a good solution for the price point. Just don't expect it to be the greatest IT ticketing service that you've ever utilized because customization is lacking and support could be improved, but for user-friendliness, it is pretty good. It has a user-friendly interface.

I would rate it an eight out of 10 because the price is great and user-friendliness is great. They could improve on how customizable it is, but I do understand that it comes with a lower price.

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
Practice Leader - Digital Process Automation at a computer software company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 20
Easy to develop, low-code, and has a good user interface
Pros and Cons
  • "Appian has many valuable features, the first being the ease of development—rapid development. Second, the process of learning the product and tool is faster when compared to its peers in the market. It's closer to low-code, and while it's still not very easy, it's more low-code than other products in the industry. Appian has a good user interface, a seamless model user interface, which comes without additional coding. It can also integrate with multiple systems."
  • "There are four areas I believe Appian could improve in. The first is a seamless contact center integration. Appian does not have a contact center feature. The second is advanced features in RPA. The third would be chatbot and email bot integration—while Appian comes with chatbot and email bot, it's not as mature as it should be, compared to the competition. The fourth area would be next best action, since there is not much of this sort of feature in Appian. These are all features which competitors' products have, and in a mature manner, whereas Appian lacks on these four areas. I see customers who are moving from Appian to Pega because these features are not in Appian."

What is our primary use case?

There are multiple use cases of Appian. A banking customer uses it more for agent onboarding; we are working on contract management for a manufacturing customer; and we are working on an incident management system for an airport. There are almost seven to eight use cases, as of now. 

We don't use Appian, we are partners and we implement this solution for customers. I'm working on both on-premises and cloud-based deployment. Appian's deployment is hybrid. 

What is most valuable?

Appian has many valuable features, the first being the ease of development—rapid development. Second, the process of learning the product and tool is faster when compared to its peers in the market. It's closer to low-code, and while it's still not very easy, it's more low-code than other products in the industry. Appian has a good user interface, a seamless model user interface, which comes without additional coding. It can also integrate with multiple systems. 

What needs improvement?

There are four areas I believe Appian could improve in. The first is a seamless contact center integration. Appian does not have a contact center feature. The second is advanced features in RPA. The third would be chatbot and email bot integration—while Appian comes with chatbot and email bot, it's not as mature as it should be, compared to the competition. The fourth area would be next best action, since there is not much of this sort of feature in Appian. These are all features which competitors' products have, and in a mature manner, whereas Appian lacks on these four areas. I see customers who are moving from Appian to Pega because these features are not in Appian. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with Appian for three years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability and performance are good. Appian is focusing a lot on this because they recently came out with a Kubernetes system acquisition, which is providing them the ability to scale as well as an expansion model that can be as stable as required. The performance is very good, as this solution is available across multiple cloud systems. 

As far as maintenance, it's pretty straightforward because Appian, as a company, comes with very mature hotfixes when required, as well as seamless upgrades. As long as you do not do any customizations—which is not recommended—it is pretty easy and straightforward to maintain, and does not take much effort. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Appian is definitely easy to scale, especially if you understand the requirements. It's a good architecture. 

Of our customers who use Appian, I would say most of them are medium-sized. Next would be large-sized, and then there are not many small-sized customers. Medium- and large-sized companies mostly go for Appian. 

How are customer service and support?

I would rate the technical support of Appian about a seven out of ten because there is definitely room for improvement when compared to the other product support we are seeing. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is a simple process. If it's on cloud, it does not take much time. If it's on-premise, you have to have all the required hardware. It takes around four hours. 

What about the implementation team?

We implement this solution for customers. 

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

Appian is very flexible in their pricing. In general, Appian's pricing is much, much lower when compared to competition like Pega or other products. Appian also has a flexible licensing model across geographies. Pega usually goes with a single licensing cost—which is a US-based cost—for all global customers, and it's costly. Whereas Appian has a different regional licensing cost model and it can be cheaper, depending on geography. So Appian's licensing is very flexible, and cheaper when compared to other competition. 

The pricing is pretty straightforward. If you're going for a cloud-based deployment, there are no additional costs because you're just going to be on the cloud. However, if you're going to deploy it on-premise, you would need to install software, so you might have to procure your own database and servers and everything. The current recommendation, and what most customers are going for, is the cloud because it's easy to maintain. There aren't really any costs except for the licensing. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Pega and Appian are both good BPM platforms. The area where Appian has the advantage is that it's really low-code. It takes much less effort when compared to Pega, both for developing and for setup and implementation. Within about 30 days, maximum, you can build out a product in Appian, whereas it will take you much longer in Pega. However, in regard to the four areas in which I believe Appian is lacking, Pega has all those features in a mature manner: seamless contact center integration, advanced features in RPA, mature chatbot and email bot integration, and next best action.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate Appian an eight out of ten. 

If you are looking for a fast, rapid rollout of applications and you have multiple medium-scale and small-scale processes that you want to roll out at a faster pace, with ease of maintenance, then Appian is a good product to go with. Appian can also be leveraged for large-scale implementation—for example, financial service customers, for loan origination or claims organization—but you would really need to understand your requirements in order to achieve this with Appian. Whereas with Pega, it has framework for loan originations and everything, which Appian doesn't come with. Appian is a plain vanilla product, and if you go for a large-scale core implementation, then you should have enough information and requirements to capture it. Appian is best suited to mid-scale and small-scale processes and a rapid rollout. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Hybrid Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Flag as inappropriate
Get our free report covering BMC, Microsoft, Pega, and other competitors of ServiceNow. Updated: January 2022.
563,780 professionals have used our research since 2012.