Cherwell Service Management vs ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus

• 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

• It is very easy to create business rules that automatically route email tickets to the correct department and apply templates to correctly categorize the incident.
• The technician auto-assign function allows email tickets to be fairly apportioned using a round robin technique. We do not cuurently use the load balancing technique which is also available.
• It is very easy to bulk edit requests to correct miscatergorization by Analysts. (i.e. Incidents vs. Service Requests)
• Coordinating communications and notifying ticket holders when a network or application event is resolved is very simple.

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

• Reporting tools; the report features can be a little limited, it can be quite tricky to get the information you want displayed in detail
• You can set required fields within the ticket template, which should mean the user has to complete them before they can submit the ticket, however this often doesn't enforce correctly

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

• The tool does not scale well from an ROI perspective. As you add a customer, you must add a new instance, hence a new license.
• The tool is probably on the expensive side (34,000 USD per 130 technicians per year).
• There is no usage beyond incident, change, and problem management. The CMDB feature is extremely limited and cannot generate additional ROI. There is no knowledge-base or integration with other software (other than ME Desktop Central).

Read full review