Migration Patterns by ILS / LSP products

Within the general trends for public and academic libraries for their considerations for changing systems, the survey also reveals patterns for each individual product. Those using legacy products indicate the highest levels of migration plans. For products that continue to see ongoing support and development, the migration intentions are lower, with variations according to general levels of satisfaction with the product and confidence in the vendor.

Legacy Products

Three products, now all associated with Clarivate, show signs that they have entered a final phase of thier product cycle, with about 90 percent of the libraries using them stating interest in migration (Aleph: 89.5; Voyager: 90.0). These products have not been offered to new customers for many years and increasing porportions of those using them are ready to move on to new systems. No libraries using Millenium responded to this year's survey. We can anticipate that the numbers of libraries using these products to decline in the next few years. The number of responses from libraries using Aleph and Voyager have steadily diminished (Aleph = 19 ; Voyager = 10). We cannot expect complete extinction of any of Voyager or Aleph for quite some time since some libraries continue to appreciate their advanced capabilities for managing print resources. Response trends point to the demise of Millennium in the short term. Almost all have upgraded to Sierra or to an ILS product from another vendor. Historically, ILS products have shown very long product cycles, remaining in use by some libraries many years beyond the time that they receive development. Their vendors tend to provide minimal security releases indefinitely, but also offer incentives to entice libraries to move to their new offerings.

The academic library arena remains in a phase of migrations away from legacy products. The survey provides some indicators which may indicate the direction of future migrations:

• Aleph: 19 libraries responded; 84.2 percent indicated interest in migration; (9) included Alma as a replacement candidate; 7 mentioned FOLIO; and 2 Koha. Loyalty score: 6.89. Interpretation: the remaining libraries using Aleph will move to Alma or FOLIO in the short term.
• Voyager: 10 libraries responded; 80 percent indicated interest in migration; 5 included Alma as a replacement candidate; 7 mentioned FOLIO; 0 mentioned WMS and 1 mentioned Koha. Loyalty Score: 6.5. Interpretation: the remaining Voyager sites will be divided between FOLIO and Alma.

Supported products with higher migration interest

Another group of products continue to be supported by their vendors, but with survey responses indicating a moderate number of libraries considering moving to new systems. The drivers behind these migration considerations vary among the respective products. Horizon from SirsiDynix generally saw a trend between 2010 and 2021 of a diminishing percentage of responses indicating interest in migrating. Since 2022, the percentage of libraries indicating interest in migration has risen (2022:19.2; 2023: 29.2; 2024: 36.8). This year 36.8 percent (20 out of 57) indicated interest in changing to a new system, none of which listed Symphony among their replacement considerations. SirsiDynix asserts that it will continue to support Horizon for the indefinite future. Libraries using Horizon are increasingly considering alternatives, though not quite to the extent of libraries using legacy products.

A substantial portion of libraries using Sierra indicate interest in migrating to new systems, including 53 out of 164 (32.2%) responses received this year, though those indicating interest in migration dropped sharply over the last two years. (2012: 3.1%; 2013: 6.4%; 2014: 10.8%; 2015: 12.9%; 2016: 13.4%; 2017: 19.2%; 2018: 21.4%; 2019: 33.1%; 2020: 31.4%; 2021: 34.8%; 2022:45.9%; 2023: 40%; 2024: 32.3%). For libraries using Sierra, the systems identified for migration candidates included Alma (29), FOLIO (14), WorldShare (16), Polaris (5), and Koha (5).

Large and mid-sized academic libraries give Alma high ratings for overall functionality and for electronic resource management, but give it weaker scores for managing print. These libraries give Sierra, Symphony, Aleph, and Voyager higher scores for managing print resources. Given that academic libraries spend ever smaller proportions of their collection budgets on print resources, perceived weaknesses in this category does not diminish the strategic impact of library services platforms such as Alma and WorldShare Management Services. Small academic libraries, which use Alma as members of consortia, generally gave Alma lower ratings. Alma’s ratings show strength in larger academic institutions and for managing electronic resources. The libraries using Alma indicate very low interest in changing systems. Academic libraries using legacy systems identify Alma as a migration candidate more than any other product, followed by FOLIO. All these factors can be seen as indicators of the continued momentum of Alma among large and mid-sized academic libraries. FOLIO is well into its implementation phase, with 56 libraries using EBSCO FOLIO responding to the survey this year and another 5 using FOLIO with other support arrangements. The migration indicators from the survey show that FOLIO has become established as the main challenger to Alma going forward among academic libraries.

Low migration interest

Products with responses indicating the lowest interest in migration include Apollo (1.9%) and Alma (4.8%).

Four products received migration intentions at a moderately low level: 9.7 percent of libraries using Polaris (14 out of (145) indicated interest in migration; 10.9 percent of libraries using Library.Solution (7 out of 64); 15.7 percent of libraries using WorldShare Management Services (19 out of 121) 18.5 percent of libraries using Symphony (46 out of 291).

View Migration Charts

In order to identify potential patterns of future system migrations, the survey asks for the names of the products that the library is considering. In most cases, the responses included multiple products under consideration. The candidate systems mentioned may indicate serious evaluation or mere name recognition. Tabulating the names of the products listed shows strong interest in Alma (73), FOLIO (69), Koha (54), Symphony (7). WorldShare Management Services (34) Polaris (29), and Sierra (7). When asked about open source interest regardless of active plans to change systems, 169 mentioned Koha, 145 mentioned FOLIO, 51 mentioned Evergreen, and 4 mentioned TIND.

FOLIO can now be considered a full competitor as a library services platform for academic and national libraries with hundreds of libraries now using it in production. This year 72 libraries using FOLIO responded to the survey, spanning 3 service providers: EBSCO Information Services (56), Index data (8), ByWater Solutions (1), and SCANBIT Technology (1) as well as 1 implementing FOLIO independently of a service provider. FOLIO has been mentioned by a growing number of libraries as a possible migration candidate. (This year 79 libraries looking for a new system listed FOLIO among products under consideration; (2024: 69; 2023: 79; 2022: 102; 2021: 86; 2020: 88; 2019: 104; 2018: 65; 2017: 59; 2016: 41).

The following table summarizes data provided on survey responses relating to whether the library is planning to migrate to a new system in the near future and candidate systems under consideration.

Note: These figures represent the number of times each product was mentioned among the candidates listed. The matrix lists only selected current ILS products and candidate systems under consideration. The sum of values given at the bottom of each column represents the total number of times the product was mentioned as a replacement candidate, including for products not among those selected for the table. The highlighted values indicate where the candidate system mentioned is provided by the same company as the incumbent.

Industry Consolidation

top

Survey results help document the impact of the changes in the business landscape. Following the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners, survey results for Symphony and Horizon dropped and eventually recovered once harsh product strategies were withdrawn; further improvement was seen when SirsiDynix was acquired by ICV. Although the event has been too recent to be reflected in survey results, the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Harris Computing has not impacted the positive trends of the company's satisfaction ratings, some comments reflected a concern.

Innovative satisfaction ratings plummeted after it was sold to private equity in 2013 and did not start to improve until the company became part of ProQuest in 2019. Aleph and Voyager generally saw satisfaction improvement following Ex Libris acquisition by ProQuest, though Alma’s ratings seem unaffected.

The acquisition of ProQuest, including Innovative and Ex Libris, by Clarivate completed in December 2021, did not trigger major changes in customer satisfaction. Changes include a somewhat higher satisfaction ratings for Alma and Sierra and slightly lower ratings for Polaris. Since 2022, ratings for Alma have risen (2021:6.83; 2024:7.07), though ratings for company loyalty have declined (2021: 6.76; 2024: 6.55); Since 2022, ratings for Polaris have dropped slightly (2021: 7.57; 2024: 7.4), with sharper declines in company loyalty (2021: 7.26; 2024: 6.99)

In previous editions of the survey, many sharp comments were given related to the impact of industry consolidation. This year’s survey included a few comments on business changes, though in a fairly subdued tone.

While Ex Libris has been an excellent vendor for onboarding, Clarivate's motivations and actions are concerning especially with the consolidation ILS/LSP vendors. There is enthusiasm for open source adoption. However, our institution lacks the resources, infrastructure, and expertise to credibly support any non-hosted open source tool, and without a radical reprioritization by university and library administration, no ability to adequately support even a hosted solution.

While we aren't happy with Innovative, and realize that Ex Libris is also under the same parent company, we are hopeful that the functionality of Alma will make it worthwhile to deal with that company.

We recently completed an ILS exploration and decided to stay with Sierra largely because of the fantastic price we were offered by Innovative/Clarivate. We love the philosophy behind open source, but at the cost of the learning curve, we might struggle a little bit to manage open source.

The vendor was acquired by a large general software company and promptly laid off 20% of its workforce. We have zero confidence in their ability to develop feature parity in the web interfaces compared to their Java client. They have been developing BLUEcloud since 2013 it still lacks many features which would enable us to use it in production, particularly with respect to cataloging. SirsiDynix has relied on customer inertia and locking libraries in to excessive multi year contracts to stay in business. They do not have a competitive offering compared to open source alternatives. Koha's capabilities with years of being a web interface will be far more useful for our purposes and we plan to migrate as soon as it is feasible to do so.

We are concerned about Sirsi since it's acquisition by Harris. Staff members were laid off in a manner that worried us. We are hopeful that Harris will restore our faith, but it is too early to determine that. We are long term, very satisfied customers of Sirsi and don't want to see people sacrificed for profit. The people are who make the product a success.

While FOLIO may be a good product for individual institutions with robust systems' staff, the EBSCO FOLIO product developed for our consortium seems woefully under or undeveloped. It has been a frustrating experience that has required a massive amount of staff time and energy to do basic library tasks. We had a functioning system and we are now being asked to help build a system for a company through very painful trial an error and without compensation. Patrons who trusted us and our consortium for decades, have become very frustrated with the experience of using the catalog, requesting items from other libraries, and routinely running into unexpected issues. We are very unhappy with our new ILS so far but feel like we have few choices because of our size and dependence on our consortium.

We have used Innovative systems for many years so it is difficult to provide an objective evaluation (no direct comparison available in our recent experience). We can say that Innovative's customer service and approach to fixing bugs and adding features in Sierra has improved markedly since it's most recent acquisition by Clarivate.

We have been very happy with the current development of Sierra by Innovative. Clarivate is continuing to plan for future update and enhancements of the product. They take customer input for enhancements and reported issues seriously and work quickly to resolve them.

International Perspective

top

The survey aims for a broad international perspective. Responses were received from the international clients of the systems commonly used in the United States as well as those that may be used primarily within other geographic regions or countries. A total of 1,006 responses were received from libraries located outside of the United States. Many of the products more familiar outside of the United States did not receive an adequate number of responses to appear in the main statistical tables.

---

Selected Companies and Products

top

Clarivate Academia and Government Software Group

Clarivate, a large public company, provides systems and services spanning multiple business areas, including Intellectual Property, Life Sciences & Healthcare, and Academia & Government. The company became public in May 2019 through its merger with Churchill Capital Corp. Clarivate acquired ProQuest in 2021, which had previously acquired Ex Libris and Innovative. The Clarivate Library Software Group is part of Clarivate Academia & and Government, which includes both the Ex Libris and Innovative brands and thier respective systems and services. The Clarivate products represented in this year's survey are described in the following table.

Academic discovery products part of Clarivate Library Software Group include Primo, Primo VE, and Summon, all based on the Ex Libris Central Discovery Index. Patron products associated with Innovative include Vega Discovery and other products within the Vega LX suite.

top

Innovative Interfaces, Inc.

Innovative Interfaces develops and supports a variety of technology products for libraries, Its Sierra ILS is used by academic, public, and special libraries in many global regions; Polaris is used mostly by public libraries. Prior to becoming part of Clarivate, Polaris was used almost exclusively in North America. In recent years Polaris has been implemented for all the public libraries in Singapore, by multiple library systems in Australia and New Zealand, a major network of school libraries in Catalonia, and by the national library in Malaysia. North America, though it has recently expanded geographically, including a major implementation in Singapore and multiple libraries in Australia Innovative has also developed the Vega LX suite of patron-facing applications that works with both Polaris and Sierra.

Libraries of all types and sizes have implemented the products of Innovative (view company profile). The company was well represented in this year’s survey results with 164 from libraries using Sierra, 145 using Polaris, and 5 using Virtua, or 314 in total.

Innovative has seen changes in its ownership over the course of this survey. These business transitions have had at least some impact on the levels of satisfaction for the products involved. The first business transition took place in March 2012 when its founder sold the company to a pair of private equity firms. The impact the change of ownership is reflected in a steady downward trend in satisfaction scores from 2013 through 2015. Innovative acquired Polaris in March 2014. A downward trend in satisfaction corresponded with the transition of Polaris as a standalone company to ownership by Innovative. VTLS was acquired by Innovative in June 2014. The satisfaction ratings for Virtua have been erratic through all years of the survey, making it difficult to interpret the reasons for change in any given year.

Innovative was acquired by ProQuest in January 2020. Under ProQuest, there was a pattern of improving satisfaction across Innovative's products. ProQuest was acquired by Clarivate in December 2021.

This year's survey provides the opportunity to note any changes that may be due to new ownership and management. Since 2019 Sierra received increases in satisfaction across all categories, with the strongest improvement seen in general satisfaction and support, reflecting a positive reaction to Innovative's performance under Ex Libris, ProQuest, and Clarivate following its exit from private equity ownership. Polaris satisfaction scores showed a sharp increase in 2020 following its transition from private equity to ownership by Ex Libris. Scores have dropped from 2021 to 2022 and have improved the last two years. It is also important to note that while the Polaris scores dropped during this period, Polaris scores are still generally higher (general satisfaction = 7.40) than those for Sierra (general satisfaction = 6.46).

Sierra

top

Sierra (full statistical report and narrative comments) has been implemented by many types of libraries throughout many international regions. This year responses were completed by 164 libraries, including 86 publics, 49 academic libraries, 13 consortia and 3 special libraries.

Loyalty scores were weak overall (6.09), mid-sized academic (4.36) expressing the least commitment to acquiring their next system from this company. Sierra received its lowest scores in the category of functionality for electronic resources (large academics: 3.75).

When considering ratings given over time, ILS Support declined significantly from 2012 (7.96) through 2019 (5.16). Support scores improved noticeably for 2019-2020, indicating a positive impact of the transition to ownership by ProQuest. This year's support score increased significantly 6.3. General satisfaction likewise increased in 2019-2020 (5.92 > 6.22), with this year's scores further improved (6.46). Innovative generally saw a steep decline in performance ratings during its period of private equity ownership (2012-2019). Its ownership by ProQuest has prompted more positive satisfaction ratings, with the integration into Clarivate showing even more improvement. Company loyalty scores have steadily improved since 2019, with a notable increase again this year.

The portion of libraries using Sierra signaling plans to change to another product has steadily increased since its launch in 2011. In 2012, 3.1 percent indicated interest in changing, climbing to 46% in 2022 and decreasing for the last two years, This year 32.6 percent of libraries responding to the survey indicated interest in migration. Of all the currently supported and developed products, Sierra shows a moderately high rate of migration intentions.

Sierra, though still widely used by libraries, is not specifically marketed to new customers, though it continues to receive product enhancements and other updates. Sierra also benefits from the discovery and patron engagement features in the Vega suite of applications. Within the Clarivate product suite, Alma ranks as its strategic product for academic and research libraries with Polaris marketed to public libraries. Some additional libraries may migrate to Sierra by joining consortia or networks with existing implementations. For existing Sierra implementations, the product will be supported and enhanced indefinitely. Many major libraries remain committed to ongoing use of Sierra, making its development and support worthwhile to Clarivate.

Perspective: The overall use of Sierra continues to drift toward public libraries and its overall implementations will diminish over the next few years. Within the Clarivate product family, Ex Libris Alma is positioned as the strategic product for academic and research libraries and Polaris as the strategic product for public libraries. Libraries rate Sierra's capabilities for print resource management (7.27) much more highly than its functionality for electronic resource management (4.60). Large public libraries give Sierra much higher overall satisfaction ratings (6.90) than do large academics (5.38). These trends suggest that Sierra, though a fully supported product, will eventually see a decline in implementations. 40% of responses indicated plans to migrate, with Alma (48) and FOLIO (23) mentioned most as replacement candidates. Given the very long product cycles for ILS products and its ongoing use by many high-profile libraries and consortia, we can expect that Innovative will continue to support and perform some development on Sierra for many more years. The improved response scores for all response categories for the 2020-2021 suggest that the product is receiving more attention under Clarivate than it did under private equity ownership.

The following table presents the 2024 survey results by library type and size:

Millennium

top

No libraries using Millennium responded to this year's survey. While some libraries continue to use this product, all most all of these have plans to upgrade to Sierra or change to another ILS.

Polaris

top

Polaris (full product report and narrative comments) has been implemented primarily by public libraries) within the United States and Canada, with 176 libraries responding to this year’s survey. Polaris continues to be well appreciated by large public libraries, receiving quite positive ratings for general satisfaction (7.30), overall functionality (6.50), print resource management (7.90), customer support (7.20), electronic resource management (6.10), and and company loyalty (7.60). The overall level of scores in the category of electronic resource management was lower than others.

From 2007 through 2012 Polaris consistently was rated as one of the top performing systems, though in 2008 libraries gave somewhat lower ratings for support. From 2012 through 2019, ratings for Polaris declined in all categories. In 2019 and 2020, satisfaction scores improved in all categories, with company loyalty showing the most improvement. This year scores improved again slightly. Mid-sized public libraries show more satisfaction in almost all categories relative to large publics.

Under Clarivate Library Software Group, Polaris is positioned as the strategic offering for public libraries, especially for new customers. Sierra is also used by many public libraries and will continue to receive development and support. The newer Vega applications further strengthen Polaris, providing more sophisticated capabilities for discovery and other patron-facing services. Noting the slightly improving satisfaction ratings seen this year, it seems that the new support and development processes coalescing under the new organizational structure have been generally well received.

---

Ex Libris

top

The Ex Libris (view company profile) group with Clarivate specializes in technologies for academic, research, and national libraries, offering a wide range of products and services, including its current Alma library services platform, Primo VE discovery Service, and many other products not specifically covered in this report. The organization continues to support its legacy Aleph and Voyager integrated library systems, though the number installations continues to diminish. This year 403 libraries using Alma, 19 using Aleph, and 10 using Voyager responded to the survey, for a total of 432 overall. Its products have been implemented by libraries in all geographic regions. Ex Libris was acquired by ProQuest in December 2015. ProQuest was acquired by Clarivate in January 2022. Ex Libris along with Innovative fall within Clarivate Academica and Government Software Group.

The libraries which have implemented Ex Libris products tend to be larger and more complex, and tend not to give superlative ratings. Ex Libris offers a variety of products not addressed by the survey, including its Leganto course list management application, Esploro for support of academic research programs, Rapido for the management of interlibrary loan transactions, and campusM as a mobile and web content management platform for academic institutions. The academic discovery section of this report covers Ex Libris Primo and Summon.

Alma

top

Alma (full product report and narrative comments), designed for academic, research, and national libraries (graph of Alma implementations by type) earned top rankings among academic libraries with collections over 1 million volumes for for general ILS satisfaction (7.02), overall ILS functionality (7.31), effectiveness of managing electronic resources (7.07), and company loyalty (6.60).

Mid-sized academic libraries gave Alma higher scores than large academic libraries in all categories.

Small academic libraries give Alma somewhat lower scores than mid-sized or large academic libraries.

This year libraries using Alma gave slightly lower ratings in all categories than those given last year.

Mid-sized academics rated Alma highest for electronic resource management (7.24), functionality for electronic resource management (7.18), and company loyalty (6.89). OCLC WorldShare Management Services scored slightly higher for management of print resources (7.63 vs 7.55); SirsiDynix scored higher for product support (7.53 vs 6.37).

Perspective: As the dominant resource management product used by academic Libraries, the performance of Alma draws considerable interest. The rise of Alma among academic libraries has been reflected in this survey since its launch in 2012. The number of responses has increased across each edition of the survey through 2022 (2012=8; 2013=18; 2014=46; 2015=88; 2016=161; 2017=260; 2018=317; 2019=383; 220=322; 2021=376; 2022: 429; 2023=409; 2024;413). This year, 413 libraries using Alma responded to the survey.. Alma has been implemented by large academic libraries and is a complex product that addresses a wider range of functionality than integrated library systems. Although the satisfaction scores given to Alma are moderate, only a handful of libraries indicate interest in changing to another product. The GALILEO consortium of academic libraries in Georga has elected to move from Alma to FOLIO, which accounts for many of those indicating interest in migrating from Alma. Of libraries considering migrating from legacy products, Alma continues to be listed as a migration candidate more than any other option (73), followed by FOLIO (69). Alma receives higher marks for its functionality for the management of electronic resources than for print. Since academic libraries generally spend most of their collection budgets on electronic resources, weaker capabilities for managing print does not seem to detract substantially from the overall satisfaction levels for Alma.

Alma is a sophisticated product used mostly in larger libraries with complex requirements. Smaller academic libraries, in contrast, often complain that Alma may be too complex, though this year they give higher satisfaction scores than larger academics.

Voyager

top

Voyager, (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by Ex Libris from Elsevier in Nov 2006, and developed specifically for academic libraries, (graph of Voyager implementations by type) though during a time when their collections included mostly print materials.

Its legacy in print can be seen in its ratings were its functionality for print received its highest scores (6.50) and functionality for electronic resources received the lowest (3.40).

Scores for support, loyalty, and company satisfaction steadily increased between 2014 and 2021; scores dropped dramatically since 2021. Company loyalty improved this year, whicle support and company satisfaction remained steady. The number of responses from libraries using Voyager has declined to the point where the statistics have become less reliable indicators.

Most libraries currently using Voyager indicate interest in migrating to a new system (8 out of 10 or 80%). Of those considering migrating, more mentioned FOLIO among the candidate replacements (7); 5 mentioned Alma. Others mentioned included WorldShare Management Services (3), Koha (1), and TIND (1). The score for company loyalty has improved for the last two years.

Perspective: During the early years of this survey, Voyager was one of the leading products for academic libraries. The acquisition of Voyager by Ex Libris in 2007 was followed by sharply improved satisfaction scores for the next few years. With the introduction of Alma and WorldShare Management Services as library services platforms better suited for the needs of academic libraries, the number of installations of Voyager diminished. Between 2018 and 2021 there was a steady improvement in satisfaction for Voyager, especially for support, though this year support scores fell (2021=7.39; 2024=6.2) The declining number of installations, survey responses, and the high percentage of libraries stating interest in migrating all point toward Voyager approaching the end of its product cycle. Most, if not all, libraries using Voyager are making plans for their next system.

Aleph (full product report and narrative comments), an established ILS product created by Ex Libris primarily for academic libraries (graph of Aleph implementations by type) continues to be used in many libraries, though the numbers are diminishing, (see selection/deselection report) driven by Aleph’s orientation to print materials and the increasing dominance of electronic resources in academic libraries.

The number of responses from libraries using Aleph were low (19), consistent with its reduced implementations. Once one of the most widely implemented ILS products in academic libraries, many have now migrated to other products. Ratings this year are difficult to characterize. Company loyalty scores have risen steadily since 2019, though were a bit down this year; Ratings for support have been steady between 2020 and 2023, and saw a sharp rise this year. General satisfaction is up a bit again this year, following a sharp drop in 2022.

Most (16 out of 19 or 84.2%) libraries using Aleph indicate interest in moving to a new system. Migration candidates mentioned included Alma (9), FOLIO (7), and Koha (2). These statistics point to a trend that a large portion of libraries now using Aleph will stay within the Ex Libris fold and eventually move to Alma, though many are also considering FOLIO.

Perspective: Aleph has been a mainstay for academic and national libraries as well as for large consortia in many global regions for more than three decades. But its architecture has become outdated and functional capabilities no longer align well with most libraries. This year, responders gave its print capabilities their highest ratings (8.00) and the lowest to its management of electronic resources (3.68). Like Voyager, support for Aleph is expected to continue for several years to give libraries plenty of time to move on to other systems. Once Aleph and Voyager fully wind down, Ex Libris will be able to fully focus all its support resources on Alma and its other new-generation products. Aleph is still used by many large libraries and consortia, so its eventual extinction still lies several years in the future.

---

OCLC

top

OCLC, a non-profit membership organization (view company profile), offers many different products and services to libraries. OCLC has developed WorldShare Management Services and WorldCat discovery service and supports a variety of ILS products acquired from other companies. The organization also offers WorldCat Discovery Service, one of the products covered in the academic discovery services section below. OCLC launched Wise for public libraries in the United States in 2018. While OCLC Wise has been implemented by many libraries in The Netherlands and Belgium, only a few libraries in the US have implemented it. OCLC offers many other products and services not within the scope of the survey or this report.

WorldShare Management Services

top

A total of 133 libraries using WorldShare Management Services (full product report and narrative comments), from OCLC responded to this year’s survey. This product has been implemented primarily in academic libraries; (graph of WorldShare Management Services implementations by type) most responses to this year’s survey for WMS were from academic libraries (92), except for 6 special libraries, 1 school library, 1 consortium, and 1 public library.

WorldShare Management Services received high scores from large academic libraries, those with collections over 1 million volumes, though the number of responses (9) was quite small compared to Alma (99), diminishing the confidence level of comparisons. It earned top scores in this group for the management of print resources (7.33), customer support (7.33), and company loyalty (7.11). Among mid-sized academic libraries, WMS led in general satisfaction (7.32), overall functionality (7.42), and print functionality (7.63). Ratings for WMS similar to those given last year, except for general satisfaction which was slightly higher.

Perspective: OCLC WorldShare Management System falls into the library services platform category of products. These products share characteristics such as globally distributed multi-tenant platforms with a single underlying codebase and provide advanced functionality for managing both electronic and print resources. WorldShare Management Services was launched in 2011. Survey results for both WMS and Alma fall into the same general range of moderate scores (6.14 – 7.5), WMS received its highest scores in the category for print functionality (7.62) and lowest for management of electronic resources (6.90 and company loyalty (6.86).; This year WMS received higher scores than Alma in many categories. Despite many similarities, Alma has gained a larger market share than WMS. The library services platform category includes limited options: OCLC WorldShare Management Services, Ex Libris Alma, and FOLIO. Until recently WorldShare Management and Alma were the main competitors in this category, but in the last 4 years interest in FOLIO has surged. Now that FOLIO has entered its production phase, more academic libraries are expressing interest in it as they mention migration candidates in their survey responses. For libraries considering new systems, WMS was listed as a candidate less often (34) than Alma (73) or FOLIO (69).

OCLC Wise

OCLC Wise, a product designed for public libraries, received 6 responses this year, below the threshold for inclusion in the comparative statistical tables. The scores given were exceptionally low and the narrative comments were generally negative. The lowest scores were given for management of electronic resources (3.50) and the highest were for customer support (6.75).

The number of responses (10) is too low to have a great deal of confidence in the significance of the statistics.

Some of the comments given include:

OCLC Wise is still in development and they are working on a lot of features that we are eagerly looking forward too, but it has been a slow process which has been a little frustrating for frontend staff.

OCLC has spent the last three years building this product on the backs of the 18 libraries in this consortium and, from the perspective of most consortium members, it has been a horrendously inept experience with unnecessary changes in terminology and procedures.

SirsiDynix

top

SirsiDynix (view company profile), provides its Symphony, Horizon, and EOS.Web integrated library systems and is developing a set of web-based complementary products delivered through its new BLUEcloud platform. The company saw a new ownership arrangement in December 2014 through its acquisition by ICV Partners from Vista Equity Partners and again in 2024 as it exits private equity to become part of Harris Computing, one of the operating companies of Constellation Software, Inc.

This year 275 libraries using Symphony responded to the survey (2023: 243; 2022: 303; 2021: 332; 2020: 321; 2019: 439; 2018: 473, 2017: 531, 2016: 436, 2015: 436, 2014: 354, 2013: 315, 2012: 380, 2011: 326, 2010: 271, 2009: 304, 2008: 233, 2007: 284). Another 55 libraries using Horizon and 13 using EOS.Web completed responses, for a total of 2343 SirsiDynix libraries represented in the survey

Following the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners in 2006, ratings for both Symphony and Horizon dropped for all categories in 2008 steadily improved through 2020. Satisfaction scores went down a bit from 2020-2022 but have been slightly higher for the last two years. Ratings for EOS.Web have declined from 2017 through 2019, substantially improved from 2020-2023, but were dramatically worse this year.

Symphony

top

SirsiDynix Symphony (full product report and narrative comments), finds use in all types and sizes of libraries and in many international regions.

Most of the responses for Symphony came from public libraries (184 out of 275); 41 were from academic libraries.

Mid-sized academics libraries rated Symphony highest in satisfaction for customer support (7.59), and for print functionality (7.67). Not enough responses were received from large academic libraries using Symphony for it to appear in the ratings tables.

Symphony was rated highest in several categories: Large public libraries gave Symphony top ratings in overall functionality (6.85) and customer support (7.92). In all the other categories Symphony received strong ratings, though Polaris received higher scores. Among Mid-sized academic libraries rated symphony highest in customer support (7.53), though was lower in the pack in other categories

15.9 percent of libraries (46 out of 291 responses) indicated consideration of migrating from Symphony. Of those registering interest in changing, 10 were academic libraries. Candidate systems mentioned included Polaris (9), Koha (8), FOLIO (7), Alma (6), WMS (5), Evergreen (2) and TIND (1). 1 mentioned remaining with Symphony among the considerations.

Ratings for SirsiDynix Symphony steadily improved from 2008 through 2020, with scores dropping somewhat in 2021 and 2022 and then improving a bit this year.

Many of the narrative comments given by libraries using Symphony and Horizon criticized SirsiDynix for not have yet completed development of the BLUEcloud modules. Unfulfilled expectations with the development of BLUEcloud stand out as an issue that may have impeded even higher satisfaction scores for Symphony.

Last year, SirsiDynix, without warning, discontinued their Library App ("BlueCloud Mobile") due to a dispute with a third-party vendor. They did this without warning, leaving patrons and libraries like ours stranded without a service that patrons had come to rely on for nearly eight months while they developed their own in-house replacement product. Their customer service response and corporate response to this breach of contract was abysmal. We no longer trust their reliability and so will be considering a replacement ILS sooner rather than later. This is in addition to the notoriously odd and sometimes difficult to navigate keyword searching that their discovery layer provides. It's just one issue too many for our patrons..

Vendor slow to develop browser-based client with functionality equivalent to existing thick client. Vendor is developing their own library app but this currently lacks functionality equivalent to the app it previously re-sold.

While I have only had to use Symphony for a year, it's clear from researching the problems I've run into that I am not alone in my troubles with SirsiDynix. It's certainly a ~usable~ system, and we get by using it just fine, but there are so very many areas that can be improved that have caused friction for my library. As I have seen plenty others mention, the lack of 21st century innovation and the slow updates and progression with their BLUEcloud services leaves me wanting more. I am not well versed enough in other ILS options to know whether our prospects would be better elsewhere, all I can say is that I'm not 100% satisfied with the results we get from Symphony. All this being said, the support staff is always incredibly helpful and does their best to give us a solution for anything we run into.

Symphony is definitely showing her age. While it may have been best in class 20 years ago; Now? It simply hasn't kept up with innovation that other ILSs have implemented. It is sorely lacking a web based client that is fully functional and while the company has promised us BlueCloud it has been over a decade since that was first announced. Customer support is still top notch but good customer support can only go so far and it certainly doesn't make up in the fact it is hard to navigate, has old architecture, and a very dated interface. The final cherry on top is the constant nickel and diming every time we want to make some minor changes or request a new report.

Horizon

top

The number of responses from libraries using Horizon (full product report and narrative comments), has diminished over the span of the survey (2007: 274; 2022: 52; 2023: 47; 2024: 55), reflecting its decrease in installations. In 2008 61.5 percent of libraries using Horizon indicated they were shopping for a new system. This year responses from libraries using Horizon show a relatively low level of interest in changing systems (20 out of 57 or 35.1%), apparently accepting the messaging from SirsiDynix that it will continue to be supported in the long term.

Horizon, implemented in many types of libraries, (see selection/deselection report). Of those libraries indicating interest in moving away from Horizon, candidate systems included Polaris (5), Alma (2), Koha (4), Evergreen (4), FOLIO (1), and WorldShare (1). None of the libraries using Horizon that were considering changing systems mentioned Symphony as a replacement candidate.

EOS.Web

top

EOS.Web (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by SirsiDynix in November 2013, received 13 responses in this year's survey. The product is used mostly by special libraries and does not appear in the statistical summary tables in this report. The responses from libraries using EOS.Web have been erratic across the annual editions of the survey. Satisfaction scores in all categories were sharply down over those seen in 2017 to 2019, and improved from 2020 through 2023. This year's scores declined dramatically.

The Library Corporation

top

The Library Corporation (view company profile) working primarily with public and school libraries, offers the Library.Solution and CARL.X integrated library systems. This year there were 63 responses from libraries using Library.Solution and 23 for libraries using Carl.X. The Library Corporation has been owned and operated by its founder since 1974.

Library.Solution

top

Library.Solution (full product report and narrative comments), has been implemented primarily in small to mid-sized public libraries and K-12 school districts.

Libraries gave Library.Solution its highest scores in the categories of print functionality (7.71) and for customer support (7.76). The lowest scores were given for company loyalty (6.75) and management of electronic resources (6.46). Across all years of the survey, scores for Library.Solution have been fairly even. This year saw a significant improvement in all categories, following a slight downturn last year. 7 out of the 64 responses (11.0%) indicated interest in migrating to a new product.

Library.Solution has seen generally lowering ratings between 2012 and 2022, with some peaks and valleys along the way. For the last two years, libraries using Library.Solution gave significantly higher ratings for the company (2022=7.0; 2024:7.63). Interestingly, ratings for company loyalty were lower this year (6.75). Since 2012 ratings for support have been higher than any other category.

Perspective: Throughout the editions of this survey, libraries have given Library.Solution moderately positive ratings, consistently within the range of 6.5 through 7.7. These scores are not always high enough to place in the top place above competing systems. Survey ratings give the company’s customer support excellent scores, as do many of the narrative comments.

Carl.Solution (full product report and narrative comments), is used primarily by large municipal libraries and consortia. With only 23 responses this year, Carl.X does not appear in the statistical tables. Ratings given for Carl.X improved from 2018 through 2020, but were lower for the last three years. Libraries using Carl.X gave The Library Corporation their highest scores for overall functionality (7.09) and lowest for support for electronic resources (5.6).

Biblionix

top

Biblionix (view company profile) is a small family-owned and managed business based in Austin, TX that focuses entirely on small and mid-sized public libraries and has developed Apollo an entirely web-based ILS deployed through a multi-tenant platform. This year 100 libraries using Apollo responded to the survey, all from public libraries.

Apollo

top

Apollo (full product report and narrative comments), is a Web-based integrated library system implemented only by public libraries with small or mid-sized collections.

Apollo was the top performer among very small public libraries, those with collections with less than 30,000 items, in all categories except customer support: general satisfaction (8.09), overall ILS functionality (7.96), print resource management (8.09), electronic resource management (7.89), and company loyalty (7.85).

In the small public library category (collections items between 30,000 and 100,000 items), Apollo received top rankings in satisfaction for customer support (8.45) and company support for electronic resources (8.14), support for print resources (8.57), and overall functionality (8.14).

Ratings for company loyalty have fallen for the last three years (2021=8.55; 2024=7.84).

This product has seen consistently positive rankings for all the years it has appeared in the survey. The ratings given this year were still quite positive, though they were lower in all categories compared to those given last year. The narrative comments for Apollo were consistently positive, for example:

We absolutely love the Biblionix Apollo ILS. The team is always very helpful whenever we need assistance in any area.

Apollo from Biblionix remains the perfect match for this library. Customer support is excellent.

Perspective: By focusing on the niche of small public libraries, Biblionix has been able to garner very high levels of satisfaction from the libraries using Apollo. These libraries may find systems developed for larger libraries overly complex and appreciate Apollo’s web-based streamlined functionality. Apollo did not appear in survey results for mid-sized or large public libraries.

Book Systems, Inc.

top

Book Systems (view company profile) develops software used primarily in schools and small public libraries, primarily in the United States. This year 89 responses were from libraries using Atriuum.

Atriuum

This year 89 libraries using Atriuum (full product report and narrative comments), from Book Systems responded to the survey; All responses except for 4 were from public libraries. Although Atriuum has been adopted in many K-12 schools, these libraries tend to be less likely to respond to the survey. The company earned its strongest ratings for customer support (8.01); its lowest ratings were for management of electronic resources (6.31). Since 2011 its scores have placed consistently in the 7.5 to 8.3 range in all categories, reflecting extremely high levels of satisfaction. There has been minor variation from year to year, with a general trend toward higher scores through 2020, with somewhat lower scores between 2020 and 2022. Ratings this year improved slightly for loyalty and general satisfaction, and stayed about the same for company satisfaction and support.

Civica

top

The library division of Civica operates primarily outside of the United States, with a strong presence in the United Kingdom, Asia, and Australia, and serves mostly public and school libraries.

Spydus

top

This year 28 libraries using Spydus (full product report and narrative comments), from Civica responded to the survey, with most coming from small and mid-sized public libraries and outside the United States. Of the 28 libraries responding, 6 (21.4%) indicated interest in migrating to a new system. Since 2011 ratings for Spydus have been mostly consistent and generally positive in all categories. Ratings have declined somewhat since 2016, but improved between 2020 and 2021, and dropped in 2022. This year saw mostly lateral scores in general satisfaction and company loyalty. Company loyalty improved. There was a significant decline in satisfaction scores for customer support.

Perspective: Although Spydus is one of the most used systems in Australia and other countries, it has only a handful of implementations in the United States and is underrepresented in this survey. Despite efforts to solicit responses from libraries in all international regions, results are skewed toward the United States and Canada, which means the survey results for products like Spydus may not be indicative of their broader customer base.

Follett School Solutions

top

Follett ranks as the leading provider of technology products for school libraries, with over 80 percent of the public school libraries in the United States using its Destiny products (chart of implementations by library type). OPALS holds a much smaller portion of the market share in the school library sector compared to Destiny, though libraries running OPALS respond enthusiastically to this survey.

In September 2021, Follett School Solutions was divested from Follett Corporation and acquired by Francisco Partners.

Destiny

top

Follett has developed its Destiny ILS primarily for the PreK-12 school library sector, though it is also used in small public libraries. This year only 44 libraries using Destiny responded to the survey, with 34 from schools, 11 from small public libraries, and 4 from small academic libraries. (full product report and narrative comments).

In all categories, school libraries rated Destiny higher than did public or academic libraries. That is an expected outcome since Destiny has been designed for K-12 schools and its use in public libraries is more incidental, due mostly to its low cost per library. Some public libraries also share an ILS implementation with their school district.

The general ILS satisfaction rating for school libraries was 7.57 and 6.63 for public libraries. Destiny was given its highest ratings for management of print resources (7.70) and for customer support (7.14). Destiny's lowest ratings were for support for electronic resources (Public=3.25; School=6.69). Responses for Destiny have been gradually rising between 2014 and 2021 but dropped in 2022. This year scores declined in all categories compared to last year.

Perspective: The response rates from school libraries have been disproportionately low for the survey. School librarians face many challenges and have proven to be difficult to reach. In some years, Follett has helped promote the survey to its users, such as in 2016 when 621 responses were received for libraries using Destiny. The satisfaction scores for that year with a large number of responses were consistent with subsequent years with smaller response rates. This observation helps strengthen confidence that survey ratings are representative of the broader customer base even with a smaller sample. The drop in satisfaction scores in 2022 may reflect some uncertainty about Follett no longer being part of the longstanding Follett Corporation but now a portfolio company of Francisco Partners.

OPALS

top

The open source OPALS ILS (full product report and narrative comments) implemented primarily in school libraries (chart of implementations by library type), received its usual enthusiastic response, with 258 libraries using OPALS completing the survey. OPALS was developed and supported by Media Flex, Inc. (view company profile). Many libraries using OPALS receive support services from their district rather than from Media Flex directly. In the state of New York, many of the BOCES provide OPALS for the school libraries they support. This year, 153 responses for OPALS came from school libraries, 121from consortia, 9 from small public libraries, and 29 from small academic libraries.

OPALS received top ratings in all categories by libraries serving PreK-12 Schools: Overall satisfaction (8.90), ILS functionality (8.70), print functionality (8.93), customer support (8.83), electronic resource functionality (8.07), and company loyalty (8.83). OPALS also received top ratings in all categories for small academic libraries, though the number of responses was smaller than those from other products. Looking at responses across all library groups, OPALS received somewhat weaker scores for its capabilities for managing electronic resources (7.55). 42 responses did not provide a response for this question, indicating that these libraries do not use OPALS for managing thier electronic resources.

Perspective: Libraries using OPALS are enthusiastic responders to this survey, both in terms of the number of responses and in the stellar satisfaction scores given. Libraries using OPALS seem truly delighted with the product and with the support they receive. It is difficult to interpret results that give highest scores to every survey question without differentiation. The only question that OPALS responders treated differently was the one addressing capabilities for addressing electronic resources.

Open Source Products

Open Source products make up a routine aspect of the library technology industry. Although this report gathers them together into a separate section, open source products compete on their own merits among the proprietary offerings. The products covered include Koha, used by all types of libraries and in all global regions, Evergreen, used by consortia of public libraries in the United States and Canada, and FOLIO, a library services platform developed primarily for academic libraries that is well into its implementation phase.

Most implementations of open source library management products rely on commercial support arrangements. The satisfaction that a library might experience will be determined both by the capabilities of the software and by the service provider. The survey measures the satisfaction across all implementations of an open source product and for each service provider, for example: Koha – ByWater Solutions or FOLIO – EBSCO Information Services.

Spanning responses across all open source products, many libraries offer comments of considerable satisfaction.

Koha

top

Koha (full product report and narrative comments), an open source integrated library system has been implemented by libraries of all types and in all parts of the world.

As an open source ILS, Koha can be downloaded and installed by libraries on their own, though many contract for installation, support, or hosting from commercial or non-profit support organizations. Those implementing Koha on their own are designated "Koha -- Independent" and others are qualified by the name of the support firm. The following table summarizes the number of libraries using Koha, their support arrangement, the number responses, and the general product support rating. Those with fewer than 6 responses fall below the threshold of performing the statistical calculations. This year 243 libraries using Koha responded to the survey.

When aggregating response scores across all support arrangements, ratings given to Koha have been generally rising since 2011. Scores across all Koha implementations were lower 2008 and 2009 than previous or subsequent years, due primarily to the low ratings from libraries using LibLime Koha, which had a strong presence in the US at that time. Since 2010 satisfaction scores given for all support arrangements for the community-supported Koha have steadily increased. Responses this year continued this trend of improved satisfaction.

Koha -- ByWater Solutions

Koha supported by ByWater Solutions (full product report and narrative comments), (view company profile) offers support services for Koha, Aspen Discovery, and other open source products. with most of its client libraries located in the United States. ByWater serves many different types of libraries (see charts for library type and library size). This year’s breakdown of the 157 responses included 87 public libraries, 31 academics, 8 consortia, 6 special libraries, and 6 schools.

ByWater Solutions receives quite positive satisfaction scores despite its challenges of supporting a rapidly growing customer base of diverse types of libraries. Its clients increasingly include larger institutions which tend to be less likely to give highly positive ratings.

ByWater Solutions earned highest scores among mid-sized public libraries in all categories: general satisfaction (8.05), overall ILS functionality (8.00), print resource management (8.18), electronic resource management (6.86), customer support (7.91), and company loyalty (8.29).

Koha with support from ByWater Solutions did not appear in the tables for large public libraries.

Very small public libraries using Koha with support from ByWater Solutions gave second-highest ratings in most categories, with only Apollo, specifically developed for this category of libraries, receiving higher scores.

ByWater Solutions also received strong ratings among small public libraries and small academic libraries.

When comparing rankings across the multiple years of the survey, ByWater saw diminishing satisfaction from 2010 through 2014, with a gradual improvement since. Scores this year were a bit higher than those given last year. The narrative comments given were overwhelmingly positive.

Evergreen

top

Evergreen, (full product report and narrative comments). an open source ILS implemented primarily in consortia of public libraries received 124 survey responses this year. Of these responses, 107 were from public libraries, 8 from academics, 7 from consortia, 1 from a school, and 1 special library. (see charts for library type and library size).

The satisfaction ratings given from libraries using Evergreen have steadily improved since 2012, though there have been some dips along the way. This year's ratings were a bit higher compared to last year. Libraries using Evergreen, regardless of the specific support vendor, give higher scores for support than other categories (8.57). Satisfaction with Evergreen's capabilities for managing electronic resources was the lowest (6.19)

Libraries using Evergreen rely an a variety of support arrangements. This year, 74 responses were from libraries working with Equinox Open Library Initiative for hosting and support services, 28 were from self-supported consortia, and 14 from consortia contracting with MOBIUS for hosting and support. Libraries associated with consortia that use Evergreen independently gave higher ratings than those working with a service provider. This difference may be partially associated with the goodwill toward their own implementation and support efforts.

Evergreen -- Equinox

top

Evergreen supported by Equinox Open Software Initiative (full product report and narrative comments), (view company profile) offers support services for Evergreen, Koha, and other open source products.

The satisfaction scores for Evergreen as supported by Equinox Open Software Initiative have been erratic for the last few years. All scores were substantially worse in 2021, but have quickly recovered since. This year's scores were about the same as those in 2023. The lowest scores were given for electronic resource management (5.96). Only 1 out of 76 responses(1.32%) indicated interest in changing systems or support providers.

FOLIO

top

FOLIO is an open source initiative to create a new library services platform with financial backing from EBSCO Information Systems (vendor profile) with other development performed by Index Data, other vendors, and by partner libraries. See FOLIO: Momentum building with new wave of implementations published in Library Technology Newsletter for further information on FOLIO.

FOLIO, following a four-year phase of development, saw production implementations beginning in 2019, with many additional libraries moving into production since that time. This year 71 responses came from libraries using FOLIO, including 55 using EBSCO FOLIO supported by EBSCO Information Services, 8 using FOLIO with support from Index Data, 1 using FOLIO with support from ByWater Solutions, and 1 using FOLIO supported by SCANBIT technology.

EBSCO FOLIO

top

FOLIO supported by EBSCO Information Services (full product report and narrative comments), (view company profile) has been implemented by over 200 libraries, with 55 responding to the Perceptions Survey this year.

The satisfaction scores for EBSCO FOLIO for 2022 were relatively positive, with 22 libraries responding. In 2023, 30 libraries responded, giving only generally similar scores. This year 56 libraries responded and gave substantially lower scores in all categories. Libraries using EBSCO FOLIO gave the highest satisfaction scores for print functionality (6.57) and for company loyalty (6.35). Lowest scores were given for overall functionality (5.71). Except for functionality related to support for electronic resources, large academic libraries gave higher scores than mid-sized academic libraries. Even though the satisfaction trends were downward this year, EBSCO FOLIO scores remain within the general range of other library services platforms. For general satisfaction: Folio=6.09; Alma=7.07; WorldShare Management Services=7.26. Four out of the 56 responses (7.14%) indicated interest in considering a new system.

Academic Discovery

top

This year’s survey included a section on academic discovery services. This portion of the survey probes issues related to index-based discovery services, including Primo and Summon from Ex Libris, EBSCO Discovery Service, and WorldCat Discovery Service from OCLC. Each of these products is based on a large-scale index that addresses the general body of scholarly literature, including individual articles, book chapters, and other items.

Many libraries use a different discovery interface than the one provided through the index-based product. The survey questions were concerned primarily with the central index and associated search and retrieval technologies. All three major discovery services offer an API that enables their use through third-party interfaces. It’s common, for example, to implement VuFind or Blacklight as the patron interface and Primo or EBSCO Discovery Service to support article-level search. Although other combinations are possible, the vast majority of implementations are based on the interface packaged with the index-based product.

Ex Libris offers two discovery services, Primo and Summon, both of which rely on a common Central Discovery Index. The user interface style and features for Primo and Summon differ substantially. Ex Libris also offers Primo VE, a version of the product that is deeply integrated with Alma. The survey does not differentiate between Primo and Primo VE.

Although some other types of libraries responded, the results were limited to those from academic libraries. Primo received 346 responses, EBSCO Discovery Service received 201, WorldCat Discovery Service received 107, and Summon received 60, for a total of 714.

Observations from the Discovery Survey Responses

One set of questions addressed the effectiveness of the discovery service for different types of users, including undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty members.

• For all the major discovery services, responses generally indicated that they worked better for undergraduates than for graduate students or faculty members.
• Summon and Primo received the highest ratings for undergraduate discovery with almost identical scores (7.04 / 7.01).
• Summon and Primo received the highest ratings for discovery for graduate students, (6.89 / 6.85)
• Rankings for discovery for faculty members were not well differentiated (Primo: 6.78; EDS: 6.72; Summon: 6.67; WorldCat: 6.34).

Another question asked about how well each product covered the library’s collections of resources.

• Results show very little differentiation in how well the discovery services cover the library's collection (Primo: 7.13; Summon: 7.08; EDS: 6.97; WDS: 6.67)

Libraries expect discovery services to be objective, without bias toward the content of any publisher or provider.

• WorldCat Discovery Services scored slightly higher than the other discovery services
• Scores for the others were not differentiated (Primo: 6.61; Summon: 6.52; EDS: 6.15)

Effectiveness for Undergraduates

Statistics related to the question: Discovery Effectiveness for Undergraduates (2024)

Effectiveness for Graduate Students

Statistics related to the question: Discovery Effectiveness for Graduate Students (2024)

Effectiveness for Faculty Members

Statistics related to the question: Discovery Effectiveness for Faculty Members (2024)

Coverage of library resources

Statistics related to the question: Coverage of library resources (2024)

Statistics related to the question: Objectivity of the Discovery Service (2024)

---

Statistics given for each Index-Based Discovery Service

EBSCO Discovery Service Statistics

Primo

Summon

WorldCat Discovery Service

---

Public Library Discovery Interfaces

top

This year’s survey included a section on public library discovery interfaces. This portion of the survey asks about the usability and satisfaction with discovery interfaces oriented to public libraries. Products in this category include BiblioCore from BiblioCommons, Aspen Discovery, an open source interface supported by multiple vendors, Vega Discover from Clarivate that works with Sierra and Polaris, Encore, a legacy discovery interface from Clarivate, BLUEcloud Discovery and Enterprise from SirsiDynix, CARL.Connect Discovery from The Library Corporation, Axiell Arena from Axiell, and VuFind an open source discovery interface.

This portion of the survey was only offered to public libraries.

Note: 84 libraries indicated "Other" as the discovery interface used. In almost all cases the product in use is the native online catalog of the integrated library system used rather than a separate discovery product.

Observations from the Discovery interface Responses

• Scores for BiblioCore were similar to Aspen Discovery and CARL.Connect
• Aspen Discovery had slightly higher satisfaction scores when supported by ByWater Solutions (7.61) than by Equinox (7.44)
• Aspen Discovery was considered a bit more usable when supported by Equinox (7.63) than by ByWater Solutions (7.52).
• Vega Discover received relatively low scores for satisfaction (6.04) and for usability (5.93).
• Encore received the lowest scores for usability (5.53) and satisfaction (5.53)

Statistics related to the question: Usability of the Discovery Interface (2024)

Statistics related to the question: Satisfaction with Discovery Interface (2024)

---

Selected Statistical Tables

Emphasis on Peer Groups

top

Public, academic, school, and special libraries each have distinct expectations for their automation products. Previous editions of the survey report presented results in comprehensive tables that aggregate results given across all types and sizes of libraries. With the increased number of responses, combined with the enrichment of survey responses with demographic data from each responding library from its entry in the libraries.org directory, for the last three years the results have been presented primarily within peer groups. Separate tables are included for the key areas of ILS satisfaction and functionality completeness for public, academic, and school libraries and according to collection size categories.

Tables assembled according to peer groups provide more appropriate comparisons as libraries consider the best products and providers to meet their future automation needs.

This approach enables libraries to make more balanced comparisons and interpretations of the results. Presenting results through amalgamated tables gives a false impression that the products that serve very small libraries perform at a higher level than more sophisticated products designed to serve larger and more complex automation scenarios. Stronger and weaker products emerge more clearly when presented within tables organized by library type and collection size. Examples of the category combination tables are presented below. The interactive version of the survey results dynamically assembles statistical result tables according to any combination of report category, library type, collection size, and country.

Analysis of Survey Responses (2024)

---

Public Libraries

top

Large Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Public libraries: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2024)

Threshold: 20. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2024)

Threshold: 20. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2024)

Threshold: 20. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2024)

Threshold: 20. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2024)

Threshold: 20. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Public libraries: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2024)

Threshold: 20. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Public libraries: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Very Small Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Very Small Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Very Small Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Very Small Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Very Small Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Very Small Public libraries: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Public libraries: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (2024)

Threshold: 8. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Academic Libraries

top

Large Academic libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Academic libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Academic libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Academic libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Academic libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Academic libraries: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Academic libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Academic libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Academic libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Academic libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Academic libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Academic libraries: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Academic libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Academic libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Academic libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Academic libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Academic libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Academic libraries: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Academic libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Academic libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Academic) (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Academic libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Academic libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Academic libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Academic libraries: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

School Libraries

top

School libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: School) (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

School libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: School) (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

School libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: School) (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

School libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: School) (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

School libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: School) (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

School libraries: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: School) (2024)

Threshold: 5. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

View report with these selections across multiple years

Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.