Users advise others considering SCSM to ensure a thorough understanding of the system, focus on user needs, and consider alternatives like ServiceNow if advanced features are desired. They suggest training and simplicity in configuration are crucial. Integration with existing Microsoft environments is beneficial, but limitations exist in non-Windows systems. Some recommend using additional tools like Cireson for improved functionality. User ratings vary, pointing out some improvements are needed, especially in the interface and web portal.

SCSM's customer service and support generally receive a rating of 3 to 4 out of 5.

SCSM suffers from a lack of usability and features in its Self-Service portal and mobile versions. Users find the customization complex, the interface needs improvement, and reporting requires advanced SQL skills. Users struggle with integration, especially with Azure and open-source solutions. The price is high, and system crashes occur during upgrades. Despite some strengths in management, the need for better technical support and simplified deployment remains a concern.

<p>SCSM enhances organizational connectivity and streamlines communication.</p>
<p>It integrates easily with other Microsoft products, providing a seamless experience.</p>
<p>SCSM includes comprehensive features such as helpdesk ticketing, incident reporting, and a robust analysis service.</p>
<p>It offers a cost-effective solution with good scalability and straightforward setup procedures.</p>
<p>SCSM supports comprehensive IT operations management, including incident and service request handling, problem management, and change request tracking.</p>

SCSM is considered stable by many, with users noting substantial improvements over the years. Some appreciate its consistency without significant glitches, while others have encountered minor issues like workflow hiccups. Stability is rated between eight and ten by users, though some express concerns about Microsoft's potential strategic shifts towards cloud solutions. Generally, the experience is positive, despite a few unresolved bugs. Users highlight its performance as satisfactory for on-premises setups, although compliance limitations exist.

SCSM offers distinct integration and ticketing systems, streamlining processes with tools like virtual machine management and active directories. Users appreciate reporting services, security updates, and ease of use. Management modules for incidents and changes enhance operational efficiency while push email updates and patches increase functionality. The digital interface, remote access, and scalability are notable. SCSM integrates seamlessly with Microsoft products, providing auto-orchestration capabilities. It caters to incident, change, and service request handling efficiently.

Primary use cases for SCSM include administrative tasks such as ITSM services, incident and change management, system deployment, and reporting. Organizations utilize SCSM for managing customer service, logging calls, ticketing, and HR onboarding. It supports internal IT operations, cloud integration, and co-management with Intune. Users deploy SCSM for service requests, patch management, and troubleshooting. Many businesses implement it for server updates, security improvements, and to enhance IT efficiency.

SCSM has been used anywhere from about one year to over twenty-five years.

SCSM is scalable, with users praising its ease of deployment and ability to handle diverse company sizes. While some note performance issues with a high number of console connections, others highlight its suitability for large environments. Customization and expansion are possible, supported by third-party add-ons. There are concerns about reporting limitations, yet many find it effective with sufficient licensing. Intune integration adds scalability, appealing to organizations with different roles.

Users evaluated solutions like ServiceNow, BMC Helix ITSM, InfraStruXure Central, Ivanti, and IBM BigFix alongside SCSM. They noted Microsoft's seamless integration compared to third-party tools requiring customization. While both IBM BigFix and Ivanti offer features, SCSM's GUI is seen as more adaptable for administration. Stability and reliability are reasons some chose SCSM over other tools. Tableau is also cited for report integration.

Many automated processes with SCSM improve time management, organize user demands, streamline operations, and enhance communication. It integrates well with Microsoft infrastructure and replaces cumbersome client visits with easier management. Some functionality surpasses Intune, but reporting remains insufficient for project transparency.

Postman gained popularity for its accessibility and usability, surpassing mixed tools previously used for testing and automation.

Organizations use in-house teams for Postman setup and maintenance, relying on internal resources for deployment and updates efficiently.

Most users deploy Postman on-premises, followed by public cloud, with private, and hybrid cloud being less common choices.

Most Postman users prefer AWS for cloud needs, followed by Microsoft Azure, with some using alternate cloud options.

Postman's comprehensive documentation and community forums largely negate support needs, though some users experience varied support interactions and resolutions.

{"quote":"Something that could be better is the inclusion of another type of test, for example, end-to-end tests.","quality_score":"6","sentiment_score":"3"}

Postman's setup is quick and easy, but configuring REST APIs can be complex; JavaScript knowledge may help.

{"quote":"I recommend Postman for all business types.","quality_score":"9","sentiment_score":"10"}

Organizations use Postman for API testing, validation, simulation, documentation sharing, and automated test scripts across teams.

Postman excels in scaling for API testing, but may require additional tools for non-API tasks and can be resource-intensive.

{"quote":"The price is low, making it a reasonable price for the product.","quality_score":"5","sentiment_score":"7"}

7.5

Postman is favored for its ease of use, automation, integrations, and API testing capabilities across different environments.

6.75

Postman needs improvements in automation, integration, interface, documentation, pricing, and advanced testing features for enhanced user experience.

Users recommend Postman for its user-friendly API testing, versatile usage, easy integration, and comprehensive features despite pricing concerns.

Many users have utilized Postman for between one and five years, indicating its sustained value and popularity.

{"quote":"I have not experienced any issues or downtimes.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"Postman is pretty stable.","score":"8"}

Postman offers versatile pricing with free and licensed versions; users find it competitively priced for added collaboration features.

Postman is stable and reliable, with occasional minor issues, generally praised for performance and receiving high stability ratings.

Postman streamlines API testing and development, enhancing efficiency, collaboration, and integration, while facilitating error detection and automation.

Users favored Postman for its ease of use and integration, though Katalon Studio and Selenium met comprehensive testing needs.

{"quote":"The price is low, making it a reasonable price for the product.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"I can use multiple environments, which allows me to create environment variables for each endpoint.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"In Postman, we have collections that contain multiple endpoints that I can test.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"It would be beneficial to expand functionality with additional testing options.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Something that could be better is the inclusion of another type of test, for example, end-to-end tests.","score":"8"}

<p>Postman is user-friendly and typically learned within minutes. It offers automation and performance testing tools, improving efficiency by over 30%. Users value the Collections feature for organizing API requests and seamless collaboration. It supports REST API testing with ease but has limitations in transaction time visibility, advanced automation, and SOAP API support. Compatibility issues exist, requiring Newman for complete reporting. Improved performance testing options and error logs are needed.</p>

I use Postman to test REST APIs, working with Node.js to ensure endpoints function correctly. Valuable features include collections and environment variables. It could improve by adding end-to-end tests. Currently, Postman leads in the market for API testing.

Several users transitioned to Postman from various tools including SoapUI, LoadRunner, ADAPT Test, and JMeter, citing improved usability and popularity. While ADAPT Test and SoapUI had limitations, LoadRunner and JMeter served different purposes, focusing on performance and load testing. Some preferred Postman for its manual testing and functional capabilities over automation-heavy tools like ReadyAPI. There were also mentions of using Swagger, Selenium, and Python scripting alongside Postman.

<p>Postman lacks support for SOAP API testing and requires more flexibility in this area.</p><p>Transaction times are not visible in Postman, making monitoring difficult.</p><p>Performance testing options are limited, and Postman needs to improve in this area.</p><p>There are challenges with integration, particularly with CRM solutions and test management tools.</p><p>Postman documentation could be improved to better support users.</p>

Postman surpasses its competitors by offering an intuitive interface, automated testing capabilities, and seamless API collaboration, which enhance development efficiency and streamline team workflows. Its community support and extensive integrations contribute to its widespread popularity among developers.

Enterprise Postman users often start with the free or open-source version but may transition to paid plans as needs grow. Licensing options include per-user fees, with moderate and competitive prices relative to other solutions. Companies frequently use its free version; however, for enhanced features and organizational use, a subscription is required. Users acknowledge that licensing costs are in the mid-range, suitable for various business sizes from freelancers to large enterprises.

Several companies successfully handled Postman implementation internally without external assistance. They often utilized small teams, typically involving only two engineers, one senior and one junior. Many reported implementing Proposeman within their organizations without the need for assistance from third-party teams. Continuous updates from Postman eliminated maintenance requirements. Deployments were frequently completed by single individuals, indicating ease of implementation. Multiple personnel and departments managed implementation independently, writing necessary processes themselves.

Customers rarely use Postman support due to its excellent documentation and robust online community. Users can troubleshoot independently or seek help through forums and online resources. While some find the support team responsive and knowledgeable, others note delayed responses and suggest improvements. The availability of online support and ease of problem resolution without direct contact with technical support is frequently mentioned. Support ratings vary, reflecting diverse experiences with Postman customer service.

Among preferences for cloud providers when using Postman, Amazon Web Services is mentioned most frequently. Microsoft Azure is supported by some, while several others opt for different providers. Majority see AWS as a reliable choice. Azure offers certain advantages appreciated by some users. A noticeable portion chooses options outside AWS and Azure, reflecting diverse requirements and priorities.

Postman's initial setup is straightforward, taking a few minutes to a few hours, with most praising its simplicity and ease. Many highlight its quick installation, requiring minimal technical expertise, although complexity may vary depending on specific deployment needs. Users appreciate the lightweight nature of the application and its ability to run as a browser extension or desktop version. Configuration, especially with proxies and APIs, is generally manageable, though adjustments might be necessary for some environments.

Postman customer service and support is rated 8 to 9 out of 10, indicating mostly positive experiences with occasional neutral feedback.

Users predominantly implement Postman within on-premises environments. Many entities utilize traditional on-premises setups for deploying Postman, with fewer opting for cloud-based alternatives. Public cloud solutions account for a smaller segment, while several others choose private cloud. A minority adopt a hybrid cloud approach.

Users advise others to prioritize Postman for its simplicity and efficiency in API testing and integration. It is highly recommended for both beginners and experienced developers. It offers ease of use, a friendly interface, and valuable features for automating processes. Despite some pricing concerns, its versatility and stability are praised. Users suggest enhancing integration with test management tools and organizing collections effectively while considering collaboration and management of secure APIs carefully.

Postman exhibits strong stability, with users noting minimal crashes or issues. The platform efficiently handles daily operations, even under heavy usage by sizable teams. Minor performance hiccups such as latency or slow loading have been noted, but improvements continue. While some reported crashes related to large APIs, the majority find Postman reliable, easy to use, and effective for testing and development needs. The web app version has shown more stability than the desktop application.

Postman users express a need for better user interface and documentation. Users report challenges with automation and integrations, especially with Jenkins and DevOps. They desire enhanced SOAP API testing, multi-window functionality, and database connectivity. Pricing adjustments and environment compatibility improvements are requested. Users also mention the absence of detailed error logs, faster reporting, and end-to-end testing options, along with a more interactive console and support for additional programming languages.

Postman's valuable features include ease of use and a user-friendly interface. Collections and workspaces enable efficient sharing and management. Automation and performance testing are enhanced with data-driven capabilities and validation. It supports multiple environment setups and authorizations while integrating with Newman for strong reporting. Postman handles different API methods, provides seamless variable management, and supports executing complex test suites. Users appreciate its lightweight nature and ability to conduct API testing efficiently without extensive programming skills.

<p>Postman is user-friendly and can be learned quickly, typically within minutes.</p>
<p>It facilitates API testing, allowing users to verify functionality and identify errors efficiently.</p>
<p>Collections feature in Postman is highly valued for organizing and executing grouped requests.</p>
<p>Postman supports automation and performance testing, significantly increasing testing efficiency.</p>
<p>It offers extensive scalability and facilitates easy sharing and collaboration among team members.</p>

Users have been using Postman for a range of six months to eleven years.

Organizations primarily use Postman for API testing, including testing GET and POST requests, validating API responses, and automation. Many teams use it to share collections and test interfaces, integrate with third-party services, and simulate events from other systems. It is used for both manual and automated testing, API documentation, and scheduling everyday runs to check API health. Teams find it user-friendly for API testing and handling complex integration scenarios.

Postman is recognized for its scalability, supporting large user bases and extensive API testing. It allows concurrent operations and integration with Newman. Users report its resource-intensive nature and suggest potential improvements in performance testing features. Even in free versions, it handles multiple instances efficiently, although some report occasional performance issues. It is favored for ease of use in large projects without vertical scaling capability but requires additional tools for comprehensive testing.

Users evaluated alternatives like SoapUI, JMeter, Katalon Studio, Selenium, ReadyAPI, Swagger, Tricentis Tosca, UFT, and others. Postman is often chosen for its ease of use, graphical support, and compatibility with integrations like Jira. Some find Katalon and Selenium preferable for UI and database testing. Others prefer ReadyAPI for its user-friendliness despite higher cost. Comparisons highlight Postman's completeness and open source advantage, frequently leading to its selection.

Postman enhances API testing efficiency by enabling data-driven and automated testing, facilitating error identification, and improving team collaboration. Users experience increased speed and quality, saving time on debugging and code writing. It is user-friendly for non-technical staff and supports both REST and GQL requests. Postman’s features allow easy sharing of test cases, seamless API integration with front-end teams, and improved API documentation visibility, significantly improving API development and monitoring processes.

Organizations preferred Webroot for its speed, resource efficiency, cloud management, and ease of use over other antivirus solutions.

Users deployed Webroot Business Endpoint Protection using internal resources or external help, reporting satisfaction with the implementation process.

{"quote":"I'd rate the solution two out of ten.","quality_score":"4","sentiment_score":"2"}

{"quote":"Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is probably on the cheaper side.","quality_score":"5","sentiment_score":"6"}

{"quote":"Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is very scalable.","quality_score":"5","sentiment_score":"7"}

5.25

{"quote":"It lacks the ability to detect threats effectively.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"The product seems to be stable.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is very scalable.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"7"}

{"quote":"Webroot Business Endpoint Protection needs to improve its ability to detect threats.","quality_score":7,"sentiment_score":2}

1.0

Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is primarily used in Public Cloud, with some users preferring Hybrid, Private Cloud, or On-premises.

7.589086

Webroot Business Endpoint Protection offers quick, easy setup, seamless cloud integration, and straightforward management, despite some initial configuration issues.

Webroot Business Endpoint Protection secures devices and servers, offering antivirus, malware defense, and centralized management for comprehensive security.

Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is praised for its scalability, allowing seamless user expansion and efficient management for growing companies.

Webroot Business Endpoint Protection's customer service is highly rated, but technical support experiences vary, with email preferred over live chat.

8.9086

2.67

Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is budget-friendly and easy to deploy but lacks advanced protection and comprehensive features.

Webroot Business Endpoint Protection needs improvements in detection, interface, reporting, ransomware defense, support, and integration for better reliability.

Webroot Business Endpoint Protection offers AI-powered security, easy management, and cost-effective cloud integration with minimal performance impact.

10

Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is reliable and efficient with minimal issues, delivering high user satisfaction and performance.

ROI was achieved in three months, highlighting cost-effectiveness and increased customer retention with Webroot Business Endpoint Protection.

Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is seen as cost-effective, especially for multi-year licenses, and competitively priced versus competitors.

Webroot Business Endpoint Protection offers lightweight, cost-effective security and management for endpoints, minimizing malware and enhancing user control.

Webroot Business Endpoint Protection has been utilized across companies for durations ranging from one to ten years.

Users assessed antivirus options for value, management, and integration, highlighting Webroot's superior deployment and integration capabilities.

{"quote":"I would rate their pricing a one or a two out of ten.","score":"10"}

{"quote":"Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is probably on the cheaper side.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"Real-time threat detection also doesn't work as it should.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"It does not do what it's advertised to do.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Webroot Business Endpoint Protection needs to improve its ability to detect threats.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Their integration is superior, with multiple integrations with different products that managed service providers use.","score":"10"}

{"quote":"The main reason we had Webroot is that it was cost-effective for our clients.","score":"9"}

<p>Webroot Business Endpoint Protection features a cloud console with AI functionality, ensuring endpoint security without slowing workstations. Known for low performance requirements, it is easy to set up and runs alongside other antiviruses. While scalable, it needs better detection for ransomware and malware, stronger defenses against threats, and advanced analytics. Current reporting requires exports to Excel, and there should be better support and virus interaction details.</p>

We use Webroot Business Endpoint Protection for cost-effective antivirus solutions, valuing its integration capabilities with managed service products. However, its threat detection needs improvement, and there's no significant ROI. We considered ESET NOD32 and Norton but chose Webroot for deployment options.

Users previously utilized a combination of Trend, Sophos, Symantec, Vipre, Kaspersky, Malwarebytes, McAfee, Panda, ESOT, AVG, BitDefender, Avast, Norton, and SentinelOne. Many switched to Webroot due to its lighter system impact, better management console, and competitive pricing. Some opted for it because of issues with resource consumption, support, or corporate actions from other providers. Webroot offered centralized management and addressed system performance concerns more effectively.