Crestron Fusion vs. UMA Vision

The Crestron Fusion software is best for a site that has a Crestron Programmer onsite to configure and maintain said system. It works well but needs to have someone keep up on changes or additions. Any environment where you don't have a Crestron expert onsite could be cost prohibitive, as your data would be inaccurate after every upgrade, unless you built the cost into the upgrade

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

At the time Crestron fusion was the only software that would integrate well with the Crestron systems. Since we are fully Crestron site we needed a program that would help us to maintain and monitor all things Crestron.

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized