Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for AGent VERSO


2019 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction13 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 75.085
ILS Functionality13 2 1 1 4 2 2 1 66.006
Print Functionality12 1 1 2 2 1 4 1 85.677
Electronic Functionality13 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 45.315
Company Satisfaction11 1 2 1 1 3 3 76.277
Support Satisfaction12 1 2 1 4 4 87.428
Support Improvement12 1 5 1 1 3 1 56.256
Company Loyalty11 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 85.095
Open Source Interest13 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 14.085

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS13 430.77%
Considering new Interface13 323.08%
System Installed on time?13 1184.62%

Average Collection size: 30889

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,00013
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010


Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2018 results according to the type and size of the library.

AGent VERSOallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1457.26 157.00001177.453023
ILSFunctionality1457.30 157.00001177.503023
PrintFunctionality1437.44 157.27001157.513023
ElectronicFunctionality1366.42 156.07001086.543023
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1447.76 157.53001177.753023
CompanyLoyalty1426.75 155.93001146.963023



2018 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction145 1 1 4 4 9 12 36 49 29 87.268
ILS Functionality145 2 3 4 6 15 36 51 28 87.308
Print Functionality143 1 1 4 8 11 37 51 30 87.448
Electronic Functionality136 7 2 7 6 15 16 25 44 14 86.427
Company Satisfaction144 1 2 1 3 3 7 9 28 52 38 87.428
Support Satisfaction144 1 2 1 1 3 2 10 19 49 56 97.768
Support Improvement137 1 1 1 5 30 8 29 31 31 86.947
Company Loyalty142 4 4 4 3 8 12 10 28 31 38 96.757
Open Source Interest143 48 15 10 11 20 24 6 3 5 1 02.622

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS148 85.41%
Considering new Interface148 53.38%
System Installed on time?148 13792.57%

Average Collection size: 35763

TypeCount
Public124
Academic15
School2
Consortium3
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00018
[2] 10,001-100,000117
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2017 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction132 1 2 4 4 5 21 23 45 27 87.178
ILS Functionality132 4 4 4 9 20 24 43 24 87.048
Print Functionality127 1 2 1 5 8 14 24 49 23 87.248
Electronic Functionality127 2 1 2 4 14 18 17 15 35 19 86.467
Company Satisfaction130 2 1 2 3 8 9 27 37 41 97.428
Support Satisfaction132 1 1 4 5 11 21 37 52 97.738
Support Improvement128 2 4 24 11 14 31 42 97.238
Company Loyalty126 3 1 2 7 7 17 21 33 35 97.138
Open Source Interest127 48 13 14 8 15 14 7 4 3 1 02.352

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS133 129.02%
Considering new Interface133 21.50%
System Installed on time?133 12190.98%

Average Collection size: 58743

TypeCount
Public111
Academic14
School0
Consortium4
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00018
[2] 10,001-100,000100
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,0003
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction89 3 2 3 8 10 27 25 11 76.887
ILS Functionality88 1 3 4 10 12 15 35 8 86.897
Print Functionality87 1 1 2 3 6 11 25 25 13 76.997
Electronic Functionality75 3 2 2 3 6 8 9 18 14 10 76.157
Company Satisfaction88 1 2 4 5 10 13 37 16 87.278
Support Satisfaction87 1 1 6 8 13 32 26 87.628
Support Improvement86 1 7 12 11 24 15 16 76.847
Company Loyalty88 4 2 4 8 9 17 28 16 86.818
Open Source Interest85 24 10 22 6 6 7 5 3 2 02.332

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS90 44.44%
Considering new Interface90 22.22%
System Installed on time?90 8392.22%

Average Collection size: 39853

TypeCount
Public77
Academic11
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,00069
[3] 100,001-250,0004
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction131 2 2 6 15 15 37 36 18 76.937
ILS Functionality130 2 2 7 13 16 45 32 13 76.827
Print Functionality128 1 1 1 8 2 15 42 43 15 87.117
Electronic Functionality108 1 1 3 6 7 8 14 32 25 11 76.487
Company Satisfaction130 1 1 2 2 11 10 39 41 23 87.227
Support Satisfaction130 1 2 4 3 12 28 40 40 87.588
Support Improvement125 1 7 35 10 18 30 24 56.777
Company Loyalty127 6 3 8 15 20 25 28 22 86.567
Open Source Interest122 36 9 24 6 16 15 5 6 4 1 02.682

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS136 128.82%
Considering new Interface136 32.21%
System Installed on time?136 12591.91%

Average Collection size: 38377

TypeCount
Public119
Academic12
School0
Consortium2
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00017
[2] 10,001-100,000106
[3] 100,001-250,0008
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction53 2 2 2 2 7 8 11 11 8 76.267
ILS Functionality54 1 4 2 1 5 6 9 19 7 86.637
Print Functionality55 1 1 2 6 4 6 18 12 5 76.477
Electronic Functionality47 3 1 3 1 7 9 4 10 5 4 75.385
Company Satisfaction54 2 3 2 3 9 18 10 7 76.567
Support Satisfaction55 1 2 1 1 1 3 4 10 21 11 87.048
Support Improvement53 3 2 1 2 11 1 8 18 7 86.457
Company Loyalty54 4 1 2 2 3 2 9 2 17 12 86.398
Open Source Interest52 14 6 12 1 9 5 3 1 1 02.482

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS58 813.79%
Considering new Interface58 46.90%
System Installed on time?58 5594.83%

Average Collection size: 47480

TypeCount
Public49
Academic7
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0008
[2] 10,001-100,00042
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction68 5 2 2 6 4 18 19 12 86.627
ILS Functionality68 3 1 1 5 6 4 19 18 11 76.687
Print Functionality68 4 2 1 1 1 2 6 14 22 15 86.858
Electronic Functionality63 3 2 2 3 6 7 6 13 11 10 76.027
Company Satisfaction68 5 1 1 1 1 4 3 16 15 21 96.908
Support Satisfaction68 4 1 3 1 3 2 11 17 26 97.198
Support Improvement64 4 7 18 2 11 8 14 56.207
Company Loyalty67 5 3 2 2 4 4 5 12 12 18 96.287
Open Source Interest66 24 11 5 1 7 10 3 4 1 02.381

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS68 710.29%
Considering new Interface68 22.94%
System Installed on time?68 6697.06%

Average Collection size: 42911

TypeCount
Public57
Academic8
School1
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00057
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction74 2 1 3 1 5 15 31 16 87.328
ILS Functionality76 2 3 3 2 1 4 18 29 14 87.058
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction76 1 1 1 1 1 4 15 24 28 97.688
Support Satisfaction76 1 1 3 1 4 11 18 37 97.808
Support Improvement75 1 1 2 9 14 3 7 16 22 96.768
Company Loyalty76 5 1 1 2 4 4 8 22 29 97.248
Open Source Interest70 22 8 14 4 7 7 5 3 02.312

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS79 67.59%
Considering new Interface79 33.80%
System Installed on time?79 7189.87%

Average Collection size: 64695

TypeCount
Public61
Academic14
School1
Consortium1
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00063
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction67 1 1 2 6 12 21 24 97.728
ILS Functionality67 2 3 7 16 22 17 87.498
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction67 1 1 7 5 23 30 98.048
Support Satisfaction67 1 1 1 2 1 19 42 98.349
Support Improvement66 1 1 9 8 5 13 29 97.538
Company Loyalty66 2 1 1 3 3 8 18 30 97.708
Open Source Interest66 18 12 7 4 9 8 4 3 1 02.592

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS67 34.48%
Considering new Interface67 00.00%
System Installed on time?67 6597.01%

Average Collection size: 40971

TypeCount
Public50
Academic13
School2
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00056
[3] 100,001-250,0004
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction72 1 1 3 7 27 17 16 77.407
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction72 5 4 19 16 28 97.818
Support Satisfaction72 1 2 3 19 12 35 97.998
Support Improvement71 16 15 4 5 8 23 96.617
Company Loyalty72 3 5 2 5 24 33 97.968
Open Source Interest71 20 7 20 6 2 11 4 1 02.242

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS73 45.48%
Considering new Interface73 00.00%
System Installed on time?73 7197.26%

Average Collection size: 31725

TypeCount
Public59
Academic11
School1
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00059
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction71 1 1 5 16 27 21 87.838
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction71 1 2 2 5 19 42 98.319
Support Satisfaction70 1 1 1 8 15 44 98.349
Support Improvement64 2 7 2 10 10 33 97.759
Company Loyalty71 1 1 1 9 9 50 98.459
Open Source Interest71 29 9 12 1 5 8 2 3 1 1 02.061

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS72 11.39%
Considering new Interface72 11.39%
System Installed on time?72 6894.44%





2008 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction81 2 1 1 2 3 4 2 17 25 24 87.268
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction81 2 2 3 3 2 12 20 37 97.688
Support Satisfaction81 2 1 2 1 2 3 11 15 44 97.819
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty81 3 2 4 3 10 18 41 97.639
Open Source Interest81 30 6 6 8 8 11 5 4 1 2 02.632

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS83 44.82%
Considering new Interface83 00.00%
System Installed on time?83 8096.39%





2007 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction18 1 2 2 5 5 3 76.897
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction24 1 1 1 1 5 8 7 87.338
Support Satisfaction24 1 1 1 1 4 8 8 87.468
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty24 3 2 1 3 8 7 86.588
Open Source Interest24 7 2 1 3 3 4 2 1 1 03.083

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS24 416.67%
Considering new Interface24 14.17%
System Installed on time?24 14.17%




2019 : gen: 5.08 company 6.27 loyalty 5.09 support 7.42

2018 : gen: 7.26 company 7.42 loyalty 6.75 support 7.76

2017 : gen: 7.17 company 7.42 loyalty 7.13 support 7.73

2016 : gen: 6.88 company 7.27 loyalty 6.81 support 7.62

2015 : gen: 6.93 company 7.22 loyalty 6.56 support 7.58

2014 : gen: 6.26 company 6.56 loyalty 6.39 support 7.04

2013 : gen: 6.62 company 6.90 loyalty 6.28 support 7.19

2012 : gen: 7.32 company 7.68 loyalty 7.24 support 7.80

2011 : gen: 7.72 company 8.04 loyalty 7.70 support 8.34

2010 : gen: 7.40 company 7.81 loyalty 7.96 support 7.99

2009 : gen: 7.83 company 8.31 loyalty 8.45 support 8.34

2008 : gen: 7.26 company 7.68 loyalty 7.63 support 7.81

2007 : gen: 6.89 company 7.33 loyalty 6.58 support 7.46

Comments (survey2018)

In the past I have had many issues with this ILS provided, over time they have addressed and resolved these issues. They have improved and continue to improve. They respond respectfully to problems or concerns. They implement changes and they are quick to be responsive. We have almost no down time. For me they have gone from my looking for a new vender to being a vender I'd recommend. That I think is commendable. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very satisfied with our current ILS. We migrated 10 years ago to Auto-Graphics and they've released a major update about every second year. They are responsive to library needs, aware of patron needs, and seem to maintain high security practices. No complaints about their product or support, nor are we actively looking for an alternative provider. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

AutoGraphics has excellent front-line help. Everyone we work with in that role responds in short order, knows the product, and is willing to find solutions. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Auto-Graphics has been pretty reliable, but the system feels old and clunky. There are too many steps to complete simple tasks. We've had major projects in our library that have prevented pursuing a different ILS, but it is on our radar for 2019 to investigate options. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Agent/Verso no longer provides federated searching of the databases. That is what it was purchased to do. Now each database has to be opened individually because of encrypted logins. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

NCIP is a separate charge from our ILS. I would really like to take advantage of that for our interloans, but not for an additional cost. Also, whatever allows Unique Management to access our records for collection purposes (the most economical way to do it from them) is an additional large charge from Auto-Graphics. If we could afford that module, we wouldn't have to be concerned about people who do not return things! BOTH of these things are as vital as any other part of the system, so I do not understand, nor agree, with them being an addtional charge. Large charge!! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

While customer service for AutoGraphics has been and continues to be excellent, there are still a lot of functionality issues that are unresolved meaning that functionality, especially in the search and statistics areas, still lags behind our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

This is the only system I have ever worked with , so I really can't compare them to another. I do know that we rarely have a problem. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I rated digital resources low on the survey because we do not add digital resources to our agent-verso catalog for customers. Too cumbersome to keep track of what it owned and deleted by that source. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Options and changes are sometimes difficult to implement. The payment/fine system is TERRIBLE. It is hard to read information, and somethings we are unable to do as other systems can do. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Just started my position 5 months ago. Some of these questions I answered to the best of my knowledge (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We use Verso, they are awesome, and extremely timely and helpful (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Sorry, guess I am technology vocabulary challenged. Many of the terms are above my level of technology vocabulary knowledge. I think the improvements in printing...especially the barcode printing...has been super for our library. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Some of the features in this ILS are frustrating. I search for an item and forget I'm not logged in and when I do log in it makes me start my search all over. uh. fix this. Expired patrons-It wont let you select the same date a year later. I have to select the 14th of August and save and then go back in and select 15th of August. fix this. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I have worked here less than one year so the majority of your questions I have no answer for in which case I put a zero or a no. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

The AG crew is outstanding. We just do not believe we are getting all the functionality the we would like out of our ILS. After a rocky start they have corrected many of the issues that we had in our floating collection system. The customer service has been professional and responsive. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

It's very difficult to get necessary software changes implemented. Inventory in particular is buggy and they haven't responded to our requests for changes. Customer Support is excellent but this does not extend to the developers. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Auto-Graphics was quite helpful when we needed help in deleting a large collection. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Extremely dissatisfied with the company's decision to not support the app in the roll out of it's new version. Resources, including time and money, were spent by the library to market the app to have it quickly shut down. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

I appreciate the customer service at Auto-Graphics. The majority of the time I call, I get an actual person which is amazing! Everyone that I've spoken with is friendly and polite. Suggestions for improvements are taken in, weighed, and often implemented, which again, is amazing! Thank you for providing excellent customer service! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

For a library of our size and the fact when a new library director comes in and gets very little training, if any at all, it is very user friendly and one is able to find out how to use this software without to much difficulty... (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our largest problem has been that the ILS is through a statewide consortium, but our library does not function as a branch, it is independent of the other libraries in the system. However, when cataloging items, records are sometimes shared. This makes it impossible to edit the item, because as soon as the MARC record is shared between libraries neither has the ability to edit the MARC. This also can cause problems when deleting items, if we delete an item but another library is using that MARC record, the item will show up in our search results as 0 of 0 availability, confusing patrons. Additionally, the AgCat program is a bit old and clunky, making it hard to do original cataloging edits. I am not sure why it is a separate program from the web interface of Verso? (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have been very happy with the product we use and wish the State of Ct had continued using this vendor for their Interlibrary Loan. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are a very poor library, we do not have extra money for our ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are not currently using Verso's servers. As a result, we are about five updates behind. At the end of January, we will move to their servers and perform an update. I will be able to evaluate their performance more effectively after this move has been made. Currently, they are very helpful in getting ready for the move. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Verso has been awesome at responding when we have hit a wall as to how much we know about the features of Verso and they take the time to walk us through the steps, and then check back later to make sure we don't have more questions! Great service! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Verso is a great product for us. However,the loss of integration with the statewide system is problematical. Also, we are unhappy that Auto-Graphics has chosen to discontinue its mobile app. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The Dashboard is very hard to navigate. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

ILS