Crestron Fusion vs Tririga

• Fusion is the main infrastructure for the Crestron Ecosystem and a result is a key components
• It has a decent ui and is easy to group and find assets. We arrange things by classroom.

Read full review

• Diverse categories of requests available
• Ability to be as descriptive as possible without character limit
• Ease of mass resource assignment for tasks
• Ease of mass maintenance task/request printing work orders
• Clean site layout that is easy to navigate

Read full review

• It requires a lot of understanding to set up for metrics. You really have to put what you want to measure into the code of each room so it can report back. It is cumbersome to add in a new metric.
• It just seems like it can be easier to have the equipment autopopulate and do standard reporting and control without having to build each of it for each piece of equipment.

Read full review

• In order to get into the back end and manage spaces, there are too many "clicks" and pop up boxes to get to the area that is needed, which causes delays and confusions.
• It can be a bit slow when processing requests, pulling up maps.
• Trigia holds a lot of information, which is good but it could be easier to get to at times.

Read full review

• Fusion has helped us make decisions on what types of equipment is being used in each room. It helped us eliminate parts not being used and saving us money in design and supportability.
• It has also helped us in that each morning we scan for what systems need attention. This has helped us create a much higher uptime.

Read full review

• It's a positive and works well with the business.
• It doesn't "stand out" from competitors but has great potential if updates were establisthed.
• The pros outweigh the cons when using Tririga.

Read full review