Asignet vs. BMC Helix ITSM

BMC Helix ITSM fits our environment particularly well, where standardized, auditable processes are already in place: Incident and Problem Management can be structured cleanly, with clear ownership, escalations, and fully traceable documentation—crucial in a highly regulated banking context. Through the customer platform/portal, users can log incidents and requests consistently, track their status transparently, and use a single central communication channel across service boundaries. This supports a service-oriented setup spanning multiple business services and locations. It becomes less suitable—or at least more effort-intensive—when core foundation data is not yet stable: an immature CMDB, insufficient ITAM data quality, and an unstructured knowledge base limit the value of automation and self-service. In addition, heterogeneous integrations and strict authorization models can increase implementation and ongoing maintenance efforts, especially when SLAs are not harmonized across different customer environments.

• AI drive incident correlation leading to identifying problems and major incidents quickly.
• Digital Workplace gives end-users a modern and personalized UI to submit requests, monitor service health, and receive self-help.
• As an enterprise ITSM, it is critical that Request, Incident, Problem, Asset, and Change Management are integrated and flow together. BMC Helix is built on this principle.

Incentivized

• Service Level management configs can be lengthy, and when changes are needed to specific SLA, it does take a long time to configure. Templates work but only for certain things, lots of manual work is still required.
• The Online product documentation can be confusing or in same cases not correct.
• BMC products are sometimes expensive. When partners try to resell licenses or increase their own allotment, it becomes very expensive.

Incentivized

It provides the tool we need and is able to be customised to meet new requirements. Cost to change in training and integrations would be considerable.

Overall the product enhances the capability of incident management, problem management and change management. The AI based framework helps generated better visibility and reports. The effectiveness of enhanced service desk suuport improves end user experience as the incidents are handled well in time and aged incidents are highlighted at the right time.

Incentivized

for now we are satisfied. first two months 😉

Incentivized

could be faster. db is slower from introducing postgresql

Incentivized

Their tech support is top notch. They respond and get back to us, even on lower level incidents and issues, very quickly. It is rare that we deal with a support technician who does not know what they are doing.

the trainers dont have so much practical experiences. its mostly follow up and reading existing documentation withou own input. of course experiences people are on shore or have no free time. sad truth

Incentivized

Satisfied because I didn't have to do it!

Incentivized

I believe Remedy's performance and market share exceeds its competitors. But it is worth mentioning that Microsoft's SCCM has excellent integration with Microsoft enterprise solutions and has is less expensive and not efficient. The IBM solution has better analytics but lacks the wide features and capabilities of Remedy. HP & CA are the real competitors for Remedy but lacks the stability, maturity, and effectiveness in Remedy

Incentivized

unclear. lot of for less

Incentivized

Again, always room for improvement, but a very stable product none-the-less.

Incentivized

• Positive: an introduction to ITIL and viewing Asset, User Management from the perspective of ITIL, and how BMC has implemented those processes
• Negative: The development team needs to communicate better with the sales and support side, and they need offer an open API
• Negative: Currently the Asset Management side has little security and validation of Asset input: anyone can make API (mostly), at any item, which is a problem that I am apart of solving.
• The UX needs updating, badly. Its quality is poor: it functions, but it is cumbersome, click-heavy and requires several hours to understand how to function with it. Also, it needs to ditch IE11 support, altogether.

Incentivized