Cherwell Service Management vs Microsoft Endpoint Manager (Microsoft Intune + SCCM)

• Cherwell's email handling automation works flawlessly. The only time that I have ever needed to reset the automation service that drives it is when my own server that houses the small connecting agent has some kind of problem and disconnects us from our hosted Cherwell instance. It just works. Emails to a certain address always result in a new ticket or update to an existing ticket.
• Cherwell is literally 100% customization in so many ways that it would be pointless to try to enumerate them. There is a very sizable list of already-created customizations (called "mApps") that you can download and apply to your instance. If you don't like them you can roll them back in seconds. But you can add and configure entire modules using one of these pre-defined, completely free, add-on packages. It's so easy to add features this way that I check the list of available mApps every month or so just to see what functionality I can add.

Read full review

• [Microsoft Endpoint Manager (Microsoft Intune + SCCM)] helps to speed up the deployment of patches/software throughout our environment. I can easily build a package and then deploy across all endpoints.
• The ability to supercede software is also quite handy. This automates the removal of old versions and replacing them with newer versions.
• The Intune Autopilot option is very useful if you want to deploy software to devices straight out of the box. You can configure them to download software when a user opens a new PC and turns it on for the first time.

Read full review

• Cherwell lacks modern UI capabilities such as responsive forms and CSS styling for web portals.
• Built-in reporting engine is hard to use and resource intensive to run.
• No patching model for small platform fixes, must upgrade to receive platform code changes.

Read full review

• The program itself can be challenging to use, especially if there hasn't been any formal training on the use of the product. Either training/reviewing documentation is recommended prior to using SCCM.
• At times, it can be difficult to try and find out why a certain machine that's listed in SCCM says that the endpoint has the SCCM client and shows as Active, but in fact, it's not. It's also difficult at times to try and figure out why the client can't be pushed down to the endpoint.
• Even though the remote assistance features in SCCM are really good, it can be challenging at times when the remote options don't work for a particular endpoint, even though the machine is active, online, etc.

Read full review

• As with any standard ticketing system, it helped decrease the time before first contact with clients.
• Our department was always concerned with keeping a low budget, and it was cheaper than most.
• My supervisor could easily tell how many resources were being put into each employee, so we had more visibility of our team's capabilities at a given time if we needed to take on something complex.

Read full review

• Cuts down our software deployment and patch management time compared to our old tools.
• Better reporting capability to determine the success to fail ratio of a deployed software or patch and additional information provided to mitigate the failed deployment.
• Consistent tool usage across our global units with centralized reporting to monitor monthly patch and software deployment results.

Read full review