Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Evergreen

Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2019 results according to the type and size of the library.

2019 Evergreen Responses by Sector
EvergreenallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1117.41 66.3321717.55147.071078.29
ILSFunctionality1107.31 66.6721707.50146.931078.14
PrintFunctionality1107.66 67.6721707.80147.291078.43
ElectronicFunctionality1086.29 55.4021706.57145.501077.00
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1087.72 66.5021707.80147.501069.00
CompanyLoyalty1047.32 57.0021687.35137.771069.00



2019 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction111 1 1 3 3 6 8 19 41 29 87.418
ILS Functionality110 5 4 3 12 25 38 23 87.318
Print Functionality110 3 4 3 6 21 37 36 87.668
Electronic Functionality108 4 5 3 2 4 13 13 23 27 14 86.297
Company Satisfaction109 1 1 2 2 5 8 13 29 48 97.748
Support Satisfaction108 1 2 5 4 7 16 21 52 97.728
Support Improvement104 4 23 14 14 15 34 97.117
Company Loyalty104 5 4 1 5 4 5 11 18 51 97.328
Open Source Interest97 8 1 2 1 10 3 3 2 7 60 97.129

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS111 43.60%
Considering new Interface111 65.41%
System Installed on time?111 9989.19%

Average Collection size: 521226

TypeCount
Public91
Academic9
School0
Consortium7
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0003
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2018 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction82 1 3 1 7 4 6 24 27 9 86.807
ILS Functionality81 1 3 3 3 7 10 23 22 9 76.687
Print Functionality82 2 1 4 3 5 4 20 28 15 87.008
Electronic Functionality81 9 3 1 8 4 9 9 17 16 5 75.386
Company Satisfaction81 1 1 2 1 7 4 15 22 28 97.418
Support Satisfaction79 1 1 1 2 2 3 6 11 20 32 97.518
Support Improvement77 4 3 2 23 4 8 14 19 56.487
Company Loyalty76 7 1 1 6 5 11 14 31 97.038
Open Source Interest68 5 1 5 6 3 4 4 40 97.199

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS82 78.54%
Considering new Interface82 56.10%
System Installed on time?82 7692.68%

Average Collection size: 328719

TypeCount
Public60
Academic7
School0
Consortium4
Special0

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



2017 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction142 1 2 2 9 19 41 41 27 77.277
ILS Functionality142 3 3 16 16 45 38 21 77.087
Print Functionality142 1 1 1 4 5 15 36 44 35 87.438
Electronic Functionality138 3 3 4 6 6 15 22 37 31 11 76.287
Company Satisfaction137 1 2 6 11 8 28 34 47 97.498
Support Satisfaction135 1 3 5 7 9 23 37 50 97.618
Support Improvement133 1 1 8 35 6 17 36 29 86.897
Company Loyalty127 7 1 5 4 11 10 14 27 48 97.048
Open Source Interest121 15 4 2 3 9 6 2 3 9 68 96.619

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS142 53.52%
Considering new Interface142 117.75%
System Installed on time?142 12588.03%

Average Collection size: 462117

TypeCount
Public109
Academic11
School1
Consortium15
Special1

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



2016 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction114 1 1 5 7 17 23 39 21 87.228
ILS Functionality113 1 8 4 16 30 34 20 87.197
Print Functionality112 1 1 4 6 12 22 38 28 87.428
Electronic Functionality112 2 1 5 3 6 16 19 24 26 10 86.297
Company Satisfaction113 2 1 4 8 11 19 32 36 97.408
Support Satisfaction111 3 2 3 8 10 14 26 45 97.478
Support Improvement109 3 2 29 8 11 23 33 96.968
Company Loyalty104 7 2 2 2 1 9 6 11 19 45 97.038
Open Source Interest105 15 2 1 3 5 2 4 5 8 60 96.729

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS116 65.17%
Considering new Interface116 32.59%
System Installed on time?116 10792.24%

Average Collection size: 340121

TypeCount
Public88
Academic13
School1
Consortium8
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0002
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction111 2 3 3 4 17 30 32 20 87.137
ILS Functionality110 2 2 6 4 13 33 31 19 77.117
Print Functionality111 1 4 4 15 19 36 32 87.548
Electronic Functionality105 4 1 4 6 8 12 10 25 23 12 76.157
Company Satisfaction107 2 1 1 3 4 6 8 18 28 36 97.298
Support Satisfaction106 4 1 4 4 4 6 10 29 44 97.398
Support Improvement106 4 7 29 7 11 20 28 56.647
Company Loyalty103 3 2 3 1 3 9 7 11 27 37 97.158
Open Source Interest96 10 6 3 6 2 1 3 1 64 96.849

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS116 65.17%
Considering new Interface116 32.59%
System Installed on time?116 9985.34%

Average Collection size: 182296

TypeCount
Public96
Academic10
School0
Consortium4
Special2

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



2014 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction91 2 2 7 6 16 23 23 12 76.787
ILS Functionality91 2 4 6 9 11 26 26 7 76.647
Print Functionality89 1 5 7 4 25 30 17 87.298
Electronic Functionality89 3 3 4 14 12 19 16 10 8 65.756
Company Satisfaction89 2 2 3 9 12 17 22 22 87.107
Support Satisfaction89 2 1 6 6 11 19 22 22 87.127
Support Improvement89 1 1 6 25 12 14 11 19 56.526
Company Loyalty85 4 1 2 1 5 12 9 10 17 24 96.647
Open Source Interest79 8 1 2 1 3 3 4 3 5 49 97.109

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS93 22.15%
Considering new Interface93 88.60%
System Installed on time?93 8086.02%

Average Collection size: 203683

TypeCount
Public77
Academic6
School0
Consortium5
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0003
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction71 1 4 3 2 9 20 18 14 76.977
ILS Functionality71 2 3 2 1 3 10 17 20 13 86.897
Print Functionality71 1 1 1 3 2 6 16 26 15 87.318
Electronic Functionality70 5 1 3 6 3 14 4 20 8 6 75.566
Company Satisfaction70 1 2 1 1 2 2 5 14 23 19 87.268
Support Satisfaction68 1 1 1 1 3 6 4 13 19 19 87.158
Support Improvement69 2 1 2 9 7 16 17 15 86.967
Company Loyalty66 3 2 1 3 6 1 11 16 23 97.088
Open Source Interest58 7 1 3 2 1 2 6 36 97.169

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS71 22.82%
Considering new Interface71 34.23%
System Installed on time?71 6185.92%

Average Collection size: 211418

TypeCount
Public57
Academic7
School0
Consortium4
Special1

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



2012 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction106 10 2 4 3 12 9 31 25 10 76.227
ILS Functionality106 2 5 15 8 15 31 22 8 76.277
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction104 2 2 3 12 9 9 23 22 22 76.707
Support Satisfaction103 1 1 4 3 12 6 10 21 19 26 96.697
Support Improvement102 2 2 2 10 25 12 11 24 14 56.256
Company Loyalty101 6 2 1 2 10 6 5 19 26 24 86.607
Open Source Interest89 9 2 1 1 2 1 4 7 62 97.489

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS111 21.80%
Considering new Interface111 54.50%
System Installed on time?111 9181.98%

Average Collection size: 964406

TypeCount
Public96
Academic3
School1
Consortium7
Special2

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



2011 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction60 1 1 1 4 2 12 23 9 7 76.627
ILS Functionality59 1 1 2 3 4 11 22 10 5 76.427
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction60 2 3 2 4 5 6 24 14 87.128
Support Satisfaction59 2 1 3 5 9 5 19 15 87.058
Support Improvement57 2 1 1 18 6 6 14 9 56.467
Company Loyalty58 6 2 1 2 4 4 5 9 25 96.748
Open Source Interest47 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 34 97.779

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS62 11.61%
Considering new Interface62 46.45%
System Installed on time?62 5182.26%

Average Collection size: 118879

TypeCount
Public53
Academic5
School1
Consortium2
Special1

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



2010 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction46 1 2 8 4 16 7 8 76.837
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction45 2 1 2 2 2 7 12 8 9 76.587
Support Satisfaction45 2 1 2 3 1 5 3 11 8 9 76.297
Support Improvement45 3 1 1 8 8 1 9 9 5 75.827
Company Loyalty44 2 1 2 2 6 2 6 9 14 96.778
Open Source Interest42 1 1 1 2 37 98.319

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS47 12.13%
Considering new Interface47 714.89%
System Installed on time?47 4187.23%

Average Collection size: 178623

TypeCount
Public41
Academic3
School0
Consortium2
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00020
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0008
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction50 1 11 5 21 6 6 76.727
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction50 2 1 1 13 1 15 10 7 76.607
Support Satisfaction49 2 2 13 2 15 7 8 76.457
Support Improvement48 3 3 12 6 2 16 6 86.467
Company Loyalty50 1 1 1 14 1 8 11 13 56.827
Open Source Interest44 1 1 1 1 40 98.439

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS51 11.96%
Considering new Interface51 611.76%
System Installed on time?51 4078.43%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction13 1 2 4 4 2 77.087
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction13 1 1 7 1 3 77.157
Support Satisfaction13 1 2 3 2 5 97.007
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty13 2 1 2 3 5 97.628
Open Source Interest10 10 99.009

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS13 17.69%
Considering new Interface13 17.69%
System Installed on time?13 1076.92%




4 Responses for Evergreen in 2007

2019 : gen: 7.41 company 7.74 loyalty 7.32 support 7.72

2018 : gen: 6.80 company 7.41 loyalty 7.03 support 7.51

2017 : gen: 7.27 company 7.49 loyalty 7.04 support 7.61

2016 : gen: 7.22 company 7.40 loyalty 7.03 support 7.47

2015 : gen: 7.13 company 7.29 loyalty 7.15 support 7.39

2014 : gen: 6.78 company 7.10 loyalty 6.64 support 7.12

2013 : gen: 6.97 company 7.26 loyalty 7.08 support 7.15

2012 : gen: 6.22 company 6.70 loyalty 6.60 support 6.69

2011 : gen: 6.62 company 7.12 loyalty 6.74 support 7.05

2010 : gen: 6.83 company 6.58 loyalty 6.77 support 6.29

2009 : gen: 6.72 company 6.60 loyalty 6.82 support 6.45

2008 : gen: 7.08 company 7.15 loyalty 7.62 support 7.00

Comments (survey2019)

Many of these questions are difficult to answer for us, as we are largely self-supported on Evergreen using open-source. We do not have a vendor except for a small local vendor to help with operating system issues. We do not have an annual maintenance contract. Open-source was obviously challenging to implement, but as time has passed, it has really been good to us in terms of being in control of our own maintenance, development, bug-fixing, operating stability...it just works. Obviously, it is not a path for everyone. We do not currently have plans to change. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Electronic resource management is rated as zero because we have removed electronic resources from our catalog. Vendor merges and inadequate record management practices left the database rife with duplicate records that made updates too time consuming. Electronic resources are now presented solely in the discovery layer, and we have de-emphaized/hidden the catalog web interface for everything but holds and renewals. We rated our current satisfaction level with our ILS as 6 because we are on an older version of Evergreen. Planning to upgrade to the current release over the summer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

When answering questions 1, 5, and 10, they were answered for what we have recently switched to which was Equinox. The rest were answered for using Mobius. Also changed Mobius to Equinox in the current automation system since it is what we are currently using. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We find the system slow and going down on a weekly basis. it has been very frustrating for us. We upgraded all our computers, thinking that would help but that has not been the case at all. The support is good (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

While my responses are for the most part negative, to be fair to Equinox, many of the issues we are having have been due to what I regard as unrealistic restrictions and a poor configuration arising from a lack of knowledge of the ILS in our consortium. I am concerned about the integrity of the system in general, primarily because we've encountered many inconsistencies in how it behaves and what the outcome is for transactions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

My Library is part of a consortium, the [...]. The ILS is implemented on a consortium-wide basis. [...] also manages the ILS used by all the libraries in the consortium. The entire migration to Evergreen was mismanaged by [...]. The system's functionalities were over promised. Problems were ignored or pooh-poohed. Our holds model still isn't functioning properly. Part of the problem is at the same time [...] was mismanaging the migration, it was also mismanaging a conversion to virtual desktops. There is tremendous lag. Machines crash. I don't know if it is because of the virtual desktops or the ILS. My negative review might be a result of factors outside the ILS's control. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

The Evergreen ILS recently migrated to an internet based interface. The change has been good in many ways since it is easier to use. The negative side is that we have experienced more slow downs than in the past, probably because it uses more of our internet bandwidth. Other than that we are pleased with the overall functionality of the Evergreen ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Reports are not friendly. Patron side is fine. Catalogging in cumberson. I have used other systems that worked better. Staff much preferred the previous system (TLC) for reports and ease of use. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I live in a rural area and only open 20 hours a week. I'm the only one on staff and have a small budget. I' concerned as the fee rises every year that this system is going to get so expensive that it will cause to my library to start cutting my budget lines that are already minimal already. My salary is even minimal. So, I know technology can be expensive but please consider us rural, remote libraries with funding always less than what we should receive in your prices. If it prices out and I lose what I already have, how can I be useful to my community? I have happy to have access to so many other libraries when I don't have what my patrons want. Thank you, (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Collection count includes shared e-book resources (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The Library already operates with an open source circulation system. The drawback on open source is that smaller rural Libraries don't always get their needs meet. On the plus side - smaller rural Libraries benefit from the resources / financial strengths of bigger urban Libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] provides the first level of support for Evergreen used by the [...] . [...] contracts with Equinox to provide the second and third levels of Evergreen support for the consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Evergreen is an open source ILS that we are overall pleased with. The transition from the xul client to the web client has been a little bit of a learning curve but we are still pleased with Evergreen. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have been on Evergreen since 2011 through [...] and will be moving to the web client within the month. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Using the open source Evergreen (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I have worked in a variety of library settings with numerous ILS over the years, and the Evergreen system is the best in terms of support and functionality that I have used. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are part of a consortia and have limited say in the ILS chosen at any given time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

There is a lot of involvement between other Evergreen libraries especially in funding bug fixes and/or system improvements. Monthly meetings are held to deal with them especially with cataloging ones. Equinox has been very good in handling problems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I do not decide on the ILS. This was decided by the State. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The [...] system has been amazing across the board. The technical support is excellent with timely communications throughout the support process. The ILS system rarely experiences any downtime and maintenanceupgrades are conducted outside our business hours to minimize impact to our patrons. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are self-hosted since 2017 and provide support to our member libraries directly. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

we belong to the [...] and use Evergreen ILS. The [...] folks are the best! Super support and service at all times. This questions in this survey don't really apply to consortia.... (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The only reason we're considering a migration is because most of the rest of the university libraries in our province have joined a consortial instance of Ex Libris Alma, and we would theoretically benefit from the division of labour. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

ILS is Evergreen/PINES, already opensource, no vendor, no contract. Satisfied with functionality and effectiveness of management of resources. Support is responsive. Being open source, a lot of emphasis is put on staff testing, reading through documents , email and listserves, but library staff do not always have time to sift for information about upgrades, changes, and known issues, so sometimes communication and understanding of front-line staff do not match with that of developers and administrators. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I am the new Director for the Library. I have been in this role for less than a year, thus, my impressions are likely less favorable than my predecessor or staff who may have completed the survey in previous years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Since we get our customer support from the consortium rather than from the vendor, I have not answered the questions about whether the support has gotten better or how satisfied we are. Problems that the consortium can't resolve, they take to the vendor, but we don't have direct contact with the vendor. I will say that our current vendor appears to be providing better support to the consortium than the former vendor. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The vendor is one company. We have not done business with the vendor in 3 years. Support services comes from a different organization, a consortium. This question: (Would the library consider working with this company again), answer refers to the vendor, not the consortium. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We really do not use it for the electronic resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

ILS