Coda vs. Sherpany

Coda is great to build a place for your users to go to and see information. It is easy to navigate through and the variety of content creation is great. However, it is not always easy to create what you want and there is a lot of playing around and learning. Coda also sometimes misses some functionality which is expected. For example, downloading a list of users that have access to the platform. Being able to send push notifications when a new page has been created etc. Overall it is a good tool to use just be prepared to invest time!

Incentivized

Sherpany helps us to retrieve information from previous meetings quickly. Participants for conferences can be contacted and their records can be viewed every time, wherever, and whether they are provided by the data they collect.

Incentivized

• Flexibility. It's easy to get started on a small scale, but add more complex organization strategies as needed.
• Integrations. It's simple to ingest data from sources like Zapier for time-saving automations.
• Useful components. View table data across different formats like cards or custom detail views.

Incentivized

• It makes preparation for a board meeting very easy.
• It allows us to easily retrieve data from earlier meetings.
• It helps me to keep track of important information.
• It avoids the need (and burden) to carry around paper binders.

• It takes getting used to in terms of how the formulas per column is implemented, in contrast to how we build tables in Excel. For organization/team purchase, it would be worth considering having a training for the core team of users. Right now, we do a lot of self-learning.
• Inability to email charts or image without these objects being hosted on a third party. The community has been great in providing workarounds but it would be much more convenient to be able to have such ability natively.
• APAC Support. I'm based in Malaysia, due to timezone differences, even with a livechat implemented, the support for each step and conversation takes up to 24 hours per response. Having some hours covered in our timezone would greatly improve customer support experience.

Incentivized

• Changes with new versions should be well communicated in advance and consider in more detail the impact on existing boardrooms
• Too expensive
• Generally, more possibilities for customizing e.g. it should be possible to define security levels for access individually (why do I have to retype my email every time I synchronize?) or it should be up to the users whether and how they want to use labels (why can I only have one label per document?)

Coda is definitely something that has been proven to drive positive impact in our organization. We have many divisions that can benefit from this that we have yet to explore. It would definitely be worth renewing.

Incentivized

Coda can seem either really useful or really useless. The extremes of both ends is driven by what our own understanding of what we want to implement. If we lack this understanding, it will be easy to misunderstand Coda's usability especially in the wrong context.

Incentivized

So far in the past year, we haven't had situations that Coda has gone down for us which is great.

Incentivized

We haven't done any integrations - the initial part of our experience we found that for docs with complex formulas, the page tends to load slowly but in recent months, Coda has improved and optimized the loading times in general and we generally don't find any problems in terms of speed anymore.

Incentivized

Mainly due to timezone differences. I think Coda's support in general is well implemented and executed. They know their stuff and are helpful. But since I'm not in the same timezone, solution rates are slower for me, and that's not something I prefer. I work in customer service, too, and more often than not, time is important. Shortening the solution time would be a much greater experience.

Incentivized

They're good when needed. Sherpany offers a much more efficient way of working

I'm relatively inexperienced but this experience is meaningful. It would have been nice to have some guidance from Coda so that we understood more on Coda's purpose and potential.

Incentivized

While all of the products listed have great features and platforms, there was always one thing missing from them that I would need to get from another application. Coda was the first one we used that really combined some of the best parts of those products and allowed us to use it in one place. I also appreciate the flexibility of creating your own framework and workflow, unlike in other tools where you have to follow how they capture data and organize projects.

Incentivized

Much easier to annotate documents, better User Interface which makes it very easy to access material discussed in earlier Meetings; also very easy to navigate between different topics on the agenda.

I think scalability is definitely good here since it's based on number of doc makers. Implementation into each dept becomes simpler. That being said, due to the nature of our work, we find it easier that we have a "super user" and then a team of other doc makers. This would make the doc creation and management more efficient.

Incentivized

• Increased insight for all stakeholders involved--both in terms of overview and details
• Better grip on issues and escalations--reduced friction, confusion, and higher clarity on status, next actions, and ownership.
• Reduced time required by those who need to maintain all information. Record (a detail) once and use multiple times.

Incentivized

• The only negative thing I can see is that members can be victims of technostress and sometimes forget their password, how to find a document in a session. My role is to help them, reassure them and find a solution with them
• The positive is that all our members are often members of several committees at once and instead of receiving folders with a ton of documents, which are often cumbersome and heavy, everything is on the IPads. They can also annotate their documents as they want.