We performed a comparison between BMC FootPrints Service Core and Clarity SM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about ServiceNow, Atlassian, BMC and others in Help Desk Software."Technical support is good."
"I like the fact that FootPrints is a relational database, so every item in the database can be linked to another. This helps create history and audit trails for each CI."
"I think the most important feature is the ability to receive valuable ticket status support in a timely manner with little to no downtime interruptions."
"The discovery feature is very flexible."
"We have found the reports and the lockdown on a ticket valuable, so only one person can update issues."
"Ability to auto-generate email messages, process email messages, and approvals."
"We can track issues easier and run reports on issues to see if there are patterns."
"Having a one stop shop for linked assets and tickets has improved end user adoption and led to a reduction in phone/email tickets."
"We centralized our knowledge from various sources into one source of truth that is continually updated."
"The use, from administrative stance, is pretty simple; and even from an analyst and employee's stances. It's an easy to use system, as far as ticketing systems go, because some of them can be really inundating and complex."
"the ticket system makes sure that everyone gets taken care of, and that makes for a better customer experience. Using the system verifies that no one gets left behind."
"There is a lot of flexibility in the system. There has not yet been a case where we've had people come to us and say, "Hey, can you guys do this?" and we can't. Some of it is obviously a little bit more complicated at times, but the flexibility in the system provides a lot."
"The tool itself is valuable as a result of all its features combined. Therefore, I have found that there is no feature more valuable than another."
"Logging every action in Service Desk Manager (SDM)."
"The most valuable features of this solution are reporting, configuration monitoring, and the Request and Incidents workflow."
"It improves our service delivery process. We're more efficient. We're leveraging the ticketing system, which is always more efficient, so we can measure and improve."
"Reporting could be improved along with the option to create more fine tuned reports and to create specific fields for each type of ticket."
"It would be nice if they added the ability to go directly to a form via a deep link URL."
"Hyphens are not allowed in the quick search bar. This has created a problem in our environment where we use hyphens in our asset names."
"The mobile version of this product does not support asset management."
"The pricing could be a little lower and the product should cover more iTel versions."
"It is pretty clunky and not very intuitive. Even though I have used it for many years, I don't think it is a very good ITSM platform in general. In the telecom space, a lot of telco providers use this solution, but from my perspective, it is not very user friendly. It is a bit more laborious. There are still too many human touchpoints. There can be a little bit more automation. It would also be good to integrate it with other tools. Integration is quite difficult, especially in the telco space."
"We need more customizable reporting functionality. We could also use more collaboration of service desk tickets. This will allow for two departments to share the same information, track the progress of the total task scope no matter how complex the request is."
"It would be better if it were more user-friendly. The reporting part in the version we have is a little complicated. It takes too long to build and report. It would also be better if there were another way to manage notifications."
"They need to improve the High Availability, and the native integration between CA Service Desk Manager, CA Process Automation, CA Service Catalog and CA Unified Self-Service."
"We would like to see them revamp, or rework, a lot of their configuration management database structures. We hear that is on the horizon."
"Although I wasn't involved in the initial setup I have been involved with upgrades. They have been fairly complex. We've had some issues with upgrades where we had to roll back and get some things fixed. Some things that we ended up tracking back to not following directions right, but then other things we've run into issues."
"Report solutions are a little short."
"The API is very, very bad so we developed our own."
"It doesn't yet have the ability to integrate with other products."
"Right now, you have to create the Scoreboards individually for roles or users. If they could separate that functionality, and create the scoreboards separately, and then just link scoreboards to roles and users - that way you could reuse the same ones - that would be a huge benefit. I know, because they're a nightmare to manage at times."
"The interface is pretty straightforward, but I think for some end-users a little more simplified user interface would help."
BMC FootPrints Service Core is ranked 25th in Help Desk Software with 10 reviews while Clarity SM is ranked 23rd in Help Desk Software with 107 reviews. BMC FootPrints Service Core is rated 8.2, while Clarity SM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of BMC FootPrints Service Core writes "Scalability is customizable but it is somewhat limited in terms of how granular it can be". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Clarity SM writes "Quite good back-end architecture for end users but the API is very, very bad". BMC FootPrints Service Core is most compared with ServiceNow and BMC Helix ITSM, whereas Clarity SM is most compared with ServiceNow, JIRA Service Management, OpenText Service Management Automation X (SMAX), SymphonyAI IT Service Management and BeyondTrust Remote Support.
See our list of best Help Desk Software vendors and best IT Service Management (ITSM) vendors.
We monitor all Help Desk Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.