Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

HaloITSM vs Xurrent comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 26, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

HaloITSM
Ranking in IT Service Management (ITSM)
21st
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Xurrent
Ranking in IT Service Management (ITSM)
17th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.5
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the IT Service Management (ITSM) category, the mindshare of HaloITSM is 2.5%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Xurrent is 1.3%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IT Service Management (ITSM) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Xurrent1.3%
HaloITSM2.5%
Other96.2%
IT Service Management (ITSM)
 

Featured Reviews

Abhilash Sherkane - PeerSpot reviewer
Practitioner - Service Management at Peristent Systems
An affordable and scalable solution that provides an excellent UI and many out-of-the-box integration capabilities
The product’s UI is very good. The tool’s performance is very good. The overall performance of the tool and the navigation is fast. It is very responsive. It has a lot of out-of-the-box integration capabilities with some of the common tools that we want to integrate. If something is not available out of the box, creating or configuring a new integration on HaloITSM is easier compared to other tools.
Edward Carbutt - PeerSpot reviewer
Executive Director at Marval Software
Offers multi-tenancy architecture, both in terms of functionality and reporting, requires minimal configuration and no-code deployment
We're still biased towards our previous, more mature product. 4me still needs to reach that level of maturity. However, for most users, the product will do what they need. It's only when you have mature service management processes and need deeper integrations at the process level that you might encounter some limitations. But for less mature needs, 4me works well.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution's initial setup process was quite straightforward... I rate the technical support a nine and a half out of ten."
"The most valuable aspect is that is is codeless."
"The product’s UI is very good."
"It offers a comprehensive set of features without requiring additional payments for each feature."
"The solution is highly stable."
"I like their request management as well as their project management."
"The multi-tenancy architecture, both in terms of functionality and reporting, is the best feature. It is a really well-thought, designed, and developed part of this product."
 

Cons

"The solution's integration part needs to improve...In the future release of the solution, I expect to see certain changes in the programming of the solution. A customer of the solution should be able to customize it as per their need."
"There are no improvements needed. There is very little that HALO has not already built that is not on its roadmap."
"The product does not have its own orchestration engine."
"We would like to be able to customize and brand the solution, or at least the majority of its features and dashboards, particularly those that will be used by a large number of people."
"One area where I believe there's room for improvement in the 4me system is the absence of an asset discovery tool."
"We're still biased towards our previous, more mature product. 4me still needs to reach that level of maturity."
"Asset Discovery is a feature that should be added."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's $69 per user per month. Only administrators need a license, and there is no limit to the number of endpoints."
"The product’s pricing is competitive and less complicated."
"The solution's pricing model is good. Also, they still follow the old concurrent licensing method."
"This pricing falls on the lower end of the spectrum, making it a cost-effective option."
"The licensing costs on the website are about $60 for pay-as-you-go. And then it decreases based on volume discounts or something."
"It is the most affordable because it is priced per month per user."
"The pricing is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IT Service Management (ITSM) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
10%
University
9%
Healthcare Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Computer Software Company
16%
Healthcare Company
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
Retailer
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for 4me?
The pricing is expensive. I rate it an eight out of ten.
What needs improvement with 4me?
Asset Discovery is a feature that should be added.
What is your primary use case for 4me?
The solution is used for enterprise management.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

NetHelpDesk
4me
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Innocent Drinks, SKY TV, Sports Direct, Suzuki, Siemens, NHS, Cardiff City Council, Atos, AO.com, Ambitious about Autism, SEPA, York University etc.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about HaloITSM vs. Xurrent and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.