MSP software built for how your service desk actually runs

Buy when a standard platform fits your contracts and your techs can live inside it: the ecosystem, hiring pool, and third-party integrations of the incumbents are real advantages. Build when your billing model or SLA structure doesn't map to any platform's assumptions. When reconciliation across five tools lands on billable technician hours, build. A client-facing portal or white-label product that is itself a revenue line is another trigger, as is a PSA holding years of custom contract logic that no migration template understands. The community's shorthand from a widely-read Spiceworks thread still holds: all-in-one platforms do 80% of what you want 80% of the time at low cost; deep configurability costs more and needs an owner. Custom is the third option: exactly your workflows, with you as the owner.

Through their documented REST APIs plus webhooks. The standard pattern works like this. The RMM fires alerts via webhook, our integration layer deduplicates and maps severity, and creates or updates tickets in the PSA with the client/asset context attached. It syncs state both ways: closing the ticket resolves the alert, and resolving the alert updates the ticket. Asset inventories sync on a schedule with matching logic to avoid duplicate configuration items, and technician time entries flow into the PSA billing queue. Two-way sync is the eval criterion that matters most: one-way integrations create shadow records that drift. We define the exact sync semantics during discovery and don't commit to integrations for systems without documented APIs.

Yes. This is an architecture decision, not a feature flag. Every ticket, asset, document, time entry, and invoice carries a tenant identifier enforced at the data-access layer, so a query bug can't leak one client's data to another. Access control is role-based with per-client SSO/SAML, and co-managed setups get security segmentation so a client's internal IT staff see only their own company while your techs see everything they're assigned. All access is audit-logged. We design the tenant model up front and you sign off on it before build, because retrofitting isolation onto a single-tenant schema is a rewrite, not a patch.

As one data model, not three modules bolted together. Contracts define the commercial terms: MRR value, included hours or devices, per-role T&M rates, SLA tier. The SLA engine attaches timer policies to those contracts: response and resolution targets per priority, client business-hours calendars, pause conditions (waiting on client, waiting on vendor parts), and escalation chains. The billing engine then reads the same model: recurring charges, block-hour drawdown with low-balance alerts, T&M from approved time entries, and per-device lines, merged onto one invoice per client per cycle, synced to QuickBooks or Xero. Because SLAs, time, and billing share the model, an SLA credit or a disputed hour traces back to the timer events that produced it.

Yes, with engineering rather than hope. Migration maps tickets (with notes, attachments, and status history), companies and contacts, contract terms, configuration items, and knowledge base articles field by field into the new schema, validated in a staging tenant your team can click through before cutover. Ticket number continuity is preserved or mapped so old references still resolve. The cutover itself is phased: typically one service team or client cohort first, running in parallel until ticket counts, time entries, and invoice totals reconcile. What we don't do: lift-and-shift custom workflow automations one-to-one. Those get re-expressed in the new system's model during discovery, because the automation that made sense in the old platform rarely maps cleanly.

Yes. This comes up constantly: one widely-discussed Spiceworks thread had a small MSP whose clients were mostly HIPAA-bound, requiring any vendor with unattended access to sign a BAA. We build on infrastructure with executed BAA agreements, enforce encryption in transit and at rest, maintain immutable audit logs of all record access, and implement role-based access with least privilege. Remote access sessions are logged with technician identity and duration. We're not a HIPAA compliance consultancy. Your compliance team owns the administrative side, but the software provides the technical safeguards, and we sign BAAs as your sub-processor where the engagement requires it.

It depends on who you're selling to, and the math cuts both ways. Per-technician pricing with unlimited endpoints favors growth: landing a 400-seat client costs nothing extra in licenses until you hire, which is why it's popular with scaling MSPs. Per-endpoint pricing is cheaper for very small fleets but rises with every device you add, and it taxes your biggest wins. If you're productizing the tool for other MSPs, per-technician is simpler to sell and harder to game; if you're pricing managed services to end clients, per-device or per-user maps to how they buy. Either way, build the metering into the data model from day one. Retrofitting usage metering onto a system that wasn't designed for it is one of the most expensive refactors there is.

A focused tool (multi-tenant ticketing, your PSA/RMM integrations, and a billing engine for your contract model) typically launches in 16-20 weeks. A full platform with SLA engine, client portals, documentation sync, and reporting typically launches in 20-26 weeks. Migration from an existing PSA, complex integration semantics, and compliance requirements (HIPAA BAA, SOC 2 evidence collection) can extend both. We scope every project before pricing. Fixed cost, agreed before work starts.