We performed a comparison between BMC FootPrints Service Core and BMC Helix ITSM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Service Management (ITSM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The discovery feature is very flexible."
"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."
"It is stable and its technical support is good and quick."
"This product solidly handles incident management, problem management, and change management."
"I have used Tier II BMC support a few times. They were very responsive and recreated my environment in their lab to support me."
"We have found the reports and the lockdown on a ticket valuable, so only one person can update issues."
"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."
"It has helped the help desk team. We get our tickets in and are able to support our customers, the end-users, with this solution."
"I like the single sign-on and that administrators can customize."
"The mobile features are the best part of the new version. It is easy to be notified and update your work from a mobile, which is great."
"The most valuable features I have found to be the activity logs and the other features where you are able to continuously address issues and are able to annotate notes inside to convey them to the customer."
"The Helix chatbot is helpful, and we can use its workflow features to automate some of the use cases for our clients."
"The most valuable features of BMC Helix ITSM are the service level management, configuration, and reporting tool."
"The versatility and customizability of the product is what I like most."
"Currently, the Service Catalog has the most value to it. Mainly, because we are able to offer IT functionality to non-IT people."
"Provides a clean front-end for our users to log requests and has rich ITSM functionality."
"The pricing could be a little lower and the product should cover more iTel versions."
"It would be nice if they added the ability to go directly to a form via a deep link URL."
"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."
"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 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."
"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."
"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."
"The workflow should be made to be more user-friendly. It should also have more granular scalability."
"It needs a more organic workflow, so every field you create is labeled throughout the stack. BMC has a few products that they try to bundle together. Generally, that solution works. BMC should take a step back and think about the overall solution—not only ITSM but also CTI Integration along with chat. They have all that, but it's not an end-to-end holistic solution with the added reporting analytics."
"The notifications that the solution is providing are very helpful, they should keep improving them for the future."
"If I'm working with a client who wants to expand and move into other areas - they want to expand their workflow and other parts of the organization, they want to do some work with project management, they want to do some work with HR - I'm not sure that BMC Remedy is doing that. And it's because of their platform. Any software has a lifecycle. To me, BMC is a dated architecture."
"The interface isn't that great."
"SmartIT could include PR. This would help us greatly in bridging the gap between Remedy's views and SmartIT."
"The documentation could improve in BMC Helix ITSM."
"Whenever you start exploring some new product features, you run into defects. It has been like this for the last six years."
"Needs less infrastructure requirements."
BMC FootPrints Service Core is ranked 26th in IT Service Management (ITSM) with 10 reviews while BMC Helix ITSM is ranked 3rd in IT Service Management (ITSM) with 75 reviews. BMC FootPrints Service Core is rated 8.2, while BMC Helix ITSM is rated 8.0. 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 BMC Helix ITSM writes "The leading service management platform for delivering intelligent, user-centric experiences". BMC FootPrints Service Core is most compared with ServiceNow, whereas BMC Helix ITSM is most compared with ServiceNow, JIRA Service Management, ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus, Freshdesk and IBM Maximo. See our BMC FootPrints Service Core vs. BMC Helix ITSM report.
See our list of best IT Service Management (ITSM) vendors and best Help Desk Software vendors.
We monitor all IT Service Management (ITSM) 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.