Zylo SaaS Management Platform Alternatives

JOSYS was excellent because it not only provided visualization of SaaS management, but also integrated it into operations, including inventory, workflow, and application/approval (employee portal). It also felt scalable, even when the number of managed items increased due to subsidiaries or M&A. On the other hand, there was room for improvement in areas such as the maintenance of department information (accumulation of unnecessary departments due to lack of deletion functionality), the unclear nature of update notifications, and the flexibility of custom integrations, preventing it from receiving a perfect score.

We originally looked at 1Password SaaS Manager because our Accounts Payable department was constantly getting hit with random credit card charges for software subscriptions that no one in Finance knew about. Since, we are a tech heavy company, developers and marketing teams would just buy their own tools, expense them and AP had no way to verify if we already had licenses for those apps. It connects directly with our identity providers and financial systems to flag unapproved shadow IT, so now AP can actually see if an expense report for a new app makes sense or if it's a redundant purchase. I was very impressed by how it handles tracking AI token consumption, and turns them into a managed line item. The main downside is that getting all the integrations configured correctly between our accounting software, HR platform and SSO took a very tedious amount of data mapping.

This is a good start for increased visibility, control and governance over a team;s software products. Overall, this platform provides a positive support environment for my team. The platform is collaborative and provides an excellent audit trail, which is becoming increasingly important in a world where asset management is supported by AI delivery. Where we still have person-to-person support capabilities, ServiceNow provides an excellent platform. However, whilst we are also investing in ServiceNow's growing AI and knowledge base capabilities, it's final functionality, value and performance is dependent on the team using the platform. The main challenge is that without set standards and regular re-onboarding, product capabilities cannot be leveraged. This is also further restricted to organisation settings and licensing which limits what benefits can be realised. Additionally, ServiceNow's use-case can sometimes appear too broad for many organisation's, leading to improper and below-par implementations. More focused features and tighter-scope would ensure that ServiceNow can be clearly aligned with specific teams and processes.

CloudEagle turned our compliance process around. We went from scrambling to pull together evidence for audits to having everything ready at any given moment. The platform tracks every access event, every approval, and every policy enforcement action. Our auditors were impressed, and frankly so were we.

We absolutely love using BetterCloud for workflow automation. When a new employee is onboarded, access is automatically given and when an employee leaves access is automatically revoked. Also an amazing tool for saving on subscriptions not used.

My overall experience with Corma has been positive because it helped us get better control over a software environment that had become difficult to manage across multiple manufacturing sites globally. I support quality activities for sites producing chemical products, synthetic fiber, and paper-based materials used in personal protection, automotive, and aerospace applications. In that type of environment, software visibility is not only about IT cost. It directly affects controlled documents, product specifications, lab testing, customer requirements, deviation follow-up, corrective actions, audit readiness, training records, and traceability. Before using Corma, we did not have a clean picture of all SaaS applications being used across the business. Some tools were managed centrally, but others were adopted locally by individual plants or functions. For example, one site might use a specific tool to track customer actions or supplier documents, while another site used a different system for similar work. From a quality standpoint, that creates risk because the same type of information can be stored, reviewed, or controlled differently depending on the site. Corma helped most with visibility. It gave us a clearer view of which applications were being used, which users had access, and where licenses were assigned but not actively used. This was helpful during access reviews because quality systems often contain sensitive or controlled information, such as procedures, inspection records, test results, customer specifications, audit evidence, complaint investigations, or CAPA actions. Having better visibility helped us ask better questions about whether access was still appropriate. The product also helped with license and renewal discussions. In manufacturing, access is often given for temporary reasons. Someone may need a system during a product launch, qualification trial, customer audit, engineering change, supplier issue, or investigation. After the activity is closed, that user may no longer need the same access, but the license may remain active. Corma made it easier to compare assigned licenses against actual usage and identify cleanup opportunities before renewal. Another area that worked well was identifying unclear application ownership. We found that some tools were used by several groups, such as quality, operations, engineering, procurement, maintenance, or laboratory teams, but it was not always clear who owned the business process, who approved access, and who was responsible for renewal decisions. Corma did not solve that automatically, but it made the ownership gaps visible. The main challenge was workflow automation. In a global manufacturing and quality environment, roles are not always standard. A quality manager at one plant may support customer audits, QMS approvals, lab review, and product release, while another quality manager may only need access to a smaller set of systems. A lab analyst may need access to enter or review test results but should not have the same approval permissions as someone releasing product or closing CAPAs. A project engineer may need temporary access during a trial but should lose that access when the project is finished. Those situations require careful role mapping before automation can be trusted. Overall, I see Corma as a useful platform for SaaS visibility, access governance, license optimization, and application ownership review. The biggest value is that it gives the organization factual data to work from. However, the tool works best when the company already has strong internal discipline around system ownership, role definitions, access approval, and offboarding or role-change processes.

Our experience with Luminos has been mostly positive app discovery surfaced shadow IT tools we didn’t know were in use, role management made access requests self service instead of manual tickets, usage data helped cut a few unused licenses, and workflow automations cut down manual steps for on boarding and off boarding.The one drawback was that integration set up for some less common tools took longer than expected, but overall a strong platform with a bit of room to improve on speed.

We are using Freshservice for managing internal IT support and some SaaS-related tracking. Overall experience has been good so far. Setup was straightforward and team was able to start using it without much training. It helped us bring all support requests into one system and made things more organized.