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 2020 results according to the type and size of the library.

2020 Evergreen Responses by Sector
EvergreenallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1077.45 65.8311717.5897.330098.11
ILSFunctionality1067.38 65.8311707.5097.560097.89
PrintFunctionality1077.78 67.5011717.8097.890097.89
ElectronicFunctionality1076.11 65.5011716.2896.110095.78
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1027.90 67.6711678.0097.890088.00
CompanyLoyalty1037.37 66.6711707.2798.330078.86



2020 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction107 1 1 3 5 9 29 31 28 87.458
ILS Functionality106 1 1 1 1 7 10 25 37 23 87.388
Print Functionality107 1 1 3 2 6 22 33 39 97.788
Electronic Functionality107 3 2 4 7 9 12 13 23 18 16 76.117
Company Satisfaction103 1 1 1 1 1 6 20 33 39 97.808
Support Satisfaction102 1 1 1 2 6 19 29 43 97.908
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty103 7 1 1 4 5 20 23 42 97.378
Open Source Interest79 16 1 2 1 6 1 2 7 21 96.622

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS111 43.60%
Considering new Interface111 10.90%
System Installed on time?111 00.00%

Average Collection size: 642193

TypeCount
Public85
Academic9
School0
Consortium9
Special0

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



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 54.50%
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

2020 : gen: 7.45 company 7.80 loyalty 7.37 support 7.90

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 (survey2020)

We already have an open source ILS. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

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

We already use an open-source ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Any of the Evergreen ILS' shortcomings that I bore in mind are far more likely due to how our consortium has it configured, and not necessarily due to any shortcomings of Evergreen itself. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Have worked in both Koha and Evergreen environments; Koha is a superior product, in my opinion. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Already use an open source ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We're using Koha. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

On the open source question, we implemented an open source ILS at the start of 2020 as part of joining a consortium. It has made a huge differences in effectively dealing with the challenges that the pandemic presented. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Evergreen ILS is a great step up from our previous system. When we need help, we can contact our vendor. Given that it is open-source, though, we are able to look through the code and find answers, solutions, and problems on our own much of the time. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

I have noticed that this software does not sort scanned items in a way that makes sense, like in direct order in which the items were scanned. From what I can tell it will arbitrarily appears on the list in no particular order. This makes it difficult to go back and find, as an example, listed scanned barcodes. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The support staff at Equinox has given us excellent service when we encountered issues with Evergreen. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Evergreen is an open source product which has enabled us to be very involved with the direction of features. Having Equinox as a support company allows us the benefit of paid support from subject matter experts when things get too difficult to handle in house or when we just require more people power to work out an issue. Our lead In-house Evergreen subject matter expert has contributed significant changes back to the project that many other libraries are now using. It has been an ideal relationship for us in a lot of ways. There are still challenges while using an open source ILS but I wouldn't say they are worse challenges than commercial ILS's. The difference with open source is, we have the power to do something about it rather than wait for the company to invest in our concerns or wishes. We usually run the latest stable version updated once or twice a year. We do this for two reasons. We receive feedback for development of the ILS from our staff to bring back to Evergreen project. We also have a local consortium that we are not participant in but also run Evergreen. The consortium runs a version or two behind us and we meet with them to give them a roadmap of what expectations or issues can be set with their next update. Libraries, helping libraries. This relationship with the consortium has opened up new opportunities as we have meetings with our neighbors on a regular basis now. Evergreen is the reason but many library issues are spoken about during those meetings and recommendations from personal experiences with vendors, services, etc. It has been a real win-win-win. It's worth noting that when I speak to librarians or data entry people about our ILS I get the same reaction. Once they understand how it handles data, it's a good product albeit confusing at times, but getting their head around it initially felt challenging they said. This didn't seem like unexpected feedback while changing to another ILS system. Hope that helps, have a great day. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We already are an open-source ILS. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The Evergreen community is excellent and very supportive, with a twice-yearly release cycle that makes it easy to anticipate and prepare for changes. They are suffering from technical deficit in the form of a UI reliance on both the obsolete Dojo JavaScript framework and the soon to be end-of-life AngularJS framework. It requires a lot of effort to build new features and keep existing features up to date with current technology standards. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We already use an open source ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Did not fill out Academic Discovery service section since we are a public library system (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our current ILS is open source so that's why a 10 was chosen. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are using the Evergreen open source ILS and are very satisfied with it. Much of our satisfaction with the system owes to the excellent management of our product by our automation consortium, the North of Boston Library Exchange (NOBLE) and the various other networks and consortia with whom they work cooperatively on enhancements and improvements. Not having to rely on a vendor's mostly one-size-fits-all is a tremendous advantage the open source model has over the vendor model. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We had an outside analysis done of all of the ILSes on the market and found that Evergreen was still the only really feasible ILS for a consortium of our size and complexity. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

I marked as [...] , Inc., our consortium, as "vendor" as they host Evergreen as our ILS. Perhaps you mean Evergreen as the vendor? (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

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

Evergreen Indiana is an open-source ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

In November 2020, [...] switched from the Polaris ILS to join the [...] consortium using the open source Evergreen ILS managed by Mobius. While Polaris is a superior ILS that served us very well, the decision was made to join the NC Cardinal consortium for resource sharing and cost savings. With just two months of Evergreen use under our belt, our staff are still trying to adjust to the differences and capabilities between Polaris and Evergreen. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

ILS