Cherwell Service Management (discontinued) vs. HaloITSM

Cherwell [Service Management] is the perfect tool for any organization big or small that needs a solution to handle inter-departmental and customer facing business processes and services. Cherwell offers a complete suite of tools that allow you to maintain a robust service catalog, publicize those services through a web portal, and gives your end users a way to engage with self-help and self-service. In addition, Cherwell's low code architecture makes configuration and customization a breeze without a concern of rendering the system unusable and un-upgradeable. Cherwell is designed for change and we find that we are able to easily manage ever changing workflows with ease. If you are a small organization, you can set up and maintain Cherwell with minimal staff. If you are a large organization with complex business needs, you can leverage Cherwell to solve a wide variety of business problems rapidly.

HALO is very much suited to the IT Support Desk environment and works very well. It offers all the functionality that is required to run a service plus much more. I can't really comment on the other modules yet as we haven't really fully utilised them, but hopefully will in the future.

• After proper training on setting up the views and servers, Cherwell did a good job separating various department ownership of tickets. Our work views weren't cluttered with irrelevant information.
• There is a lot of information that can be embedded into tickets. Such as sub-task assignments that could contain almost the same information as a ticket itself. Lot of customization options.
• Custom personal dashboards were nice, once I figured out how to do it. Not everyone wants to see things the same way as other people, and being able to move touch points where you want is always a plus.

Incentivized

• Ticketing Structure
• The ticketing structure (allowing us to add custom fields and tables) and the process are quick, clean, and easy to adapt to our changing needs. Change requests are processed within a few hours (complex ones take longer, purely for testing), however, the whole solution is geared to customization and the more you work with it the more you get out of it
• SLA's
• Detailed SLAs for each part of the business, with multiple tiers, time frames, reporting, and alerting options - a different config for every team configured with a few simple clicks
• Time Management
• Excellent granular reporting that lets you drill in, both from a business perspective as to how many hours are being spent on different activities and from a support perspective, where are your teams spending their team.
• Reporting
• Excellent set of customizable reports (hundreds of them) along with a reporting tool (For which a little SQL does go a long way) and for those fiddly reports, free support is only a call away.
• Role Assignments
• Simple role assignments that make updating changes to teams and departments the work of minutes rather than days. Easy to apply and each person can have multiple roles. Simple but powerful and very sleek.

• Sometimes comments made on a ticket do not generate emails to the technician who owns it, and they will not know there is an update from the customer without checking it
• Sometimes I will see an error pop up when copying text but it can easily be closed
• Sometimes the time-out window for staying logged in does not appear on top of other applications so I will not know it's logging me out

Incentivized

• Support for M365 \ Power Platform, Power Bi reporting in particular
• Feel the asset management side of the product is not as good as the ticket management
• Support is excellent but maybe an old school user forum where other admins can share and discuss ideas

There has been little experience of downtime. It is well received by end users. The ability to customise it to integrate into existing systems is good. The organisation is realising cost savings through the information it provides. There is continued investment to develop the product by our own staff. In most instances there is not a requirement for client software to run it as a simple web browser will do.

Incentivized

I enjoy the layout and configuration of our Cherwell Service Management instance. It did take me a bit to get used to, as with any new ticketing system, but now that I understand the system more, I thoroughly enjoy it! There are just so many options and the UI is very intuitive.

Incentivized

Its simple and intuitiuve - requires minimal training to get people in and working at speed

Almost always available, with exception for a handful of outages due to infrastructure related issues

Incentivized

The browser client is mostly acceptable in terms of performance, but still lacks parity with the rich client. The rich client is not very performant at all. It's built on old architecture and relies heavily on a fast internet connection, good caching and database indexing. There are several unwritten rules with form design (and form arrangement) which most users are not aware of, but can severely impact performance in the rich client. This is where the flexibility of Cherwell can come back to bite you if you step outside the boundaries of these unwritten rules

Incentivized

We generally have a good time with Cherwell support, however, there are the few niche cases where I have to explain how Cherwell works to the customer support agent on the other end. A little more product education for tier 1 support could go a long way in helping expedite support requests from SaaS customers.

I've made overall positive experiences with the Halo support. The only thing to increase would be some follow ups on feature requests. If someone would reach out to me, telling me wheter or not my feature request will be considered in future updates or not.

Incentivized

We had a 'train-the-trainer' session from Cherwell to some of our users who were unfamiliar with the product, and we had an individual who 'championed' training internally and provided several training classes over the period of a few weeks for new Cherwell users. We also had a team who traveled to remote sites to conduct in-person training there too.

Incentivized

The training was great! We got together to review the system, its UI, and how to perform basic functions. Then there was plenty of time to ask questions and test out the system while there was someone available to assist.

Incentivized

Implementation is a breeze. Each time I've implemented it, we had an outsourced vendor overseeing it & assisting where needed. However, Cherwell OOTB is ready to go, and configuring it for LDAP/SAML, etc. for authentication and user-imports is really straight forward. The infrastructure needed for Cherwell is extremely simple too - and installing the server & database takes no more than 20 mins

Incentivized

ServiceNow was administrative heavy and required more than one admin. Also expensive for smaller customers. Remedy was scaled more for enterprise customers where we are small to mid-sized. FootPrints - we replaced FootPrints with Cherwell due to a lack of BMC putting any further development into the product. It was an aging platform with no real future growth.

Incentivized

Based on our requirements, this is how we scored them. Halo - 78, ServiceNow - 77, Ivanti - 67, Jira - 57, Freshservice - 41. This was based purely on our requirements and whether additional modules required additional licences.

Incentivized

We have never had any major show-stopper issues with Cherwell itself - more so with the infrastructure it sits on. Moving from in-house cloud (on Cherwell's side), to AWS then to Azure has caused multiple problems over the years (some still on-going), however the product has remained fairly stable

Incentivized

• Cherwell is more expensive (of course) compared to the home-grown ITSM solution that we previously used, so it has cost us more in capital outlay and it will continue to do so. But it has drastically reduced the number of end-user issues that have "fallen through the cracks". It makes assistance triage easy because you can customize the prioritizing of tickets by both urgency and priority of your tickets as well as by VIP status of the user.
• Our internal end-user satisfaction with the IT department has drastically improved since implementation of CSM. Our technicians don't forget to finish up a task with many tiny details and that's because Cherwell's workflows provide the technician with a list of the steps needed to finish up the task. We've become a much more popular IT department and leadership has noticed. I can't put an ROI number on that but it's priceless to me.
• Technician errors in user onboarding and offboarding have virtually disappeared, saving us hours and hours of technician time. Again, I haven't calculated the ROI but it's probably a good 20% or more of our tier 1 technicians' time that has been saved. Higher-tier technicians are obviously not as affected since they weren't usually the ones who were neglecting the details, but even they have enjoyed more efficiency and better prioritization of their time.

Incentivized

• It enabled us to allow our Service Desk Staff to work from home during COVID and this has continued ever since.
• We have halved our average resolution time.
• Some of the automation processes, when implemented alongside the MS Power Platform, have saved approximately 30 hours a month. This includes times when customers were unable to access the system until they had been trained. This is now automated via Halo and they get sent to on-demand training, instead of waiting up to 3 weeks for the next scheduled session.

Incentivized