Navigation:


DISCUSSIONS > IIA GENERAL DISCUSSION AREA [ REFRESH ]
Thread Title: Pentana versus MK Insight
Created On Wednesday February 27, 2013 1:16 PM
  Pentana versus MK Insight
  Pentana versus MK Insight
  Pentana versus MK Insight
  Pentana versus MK Insight


Marc LeBlanc


Posts: 14
Joined: Nov 2006

Wednesday February 27, 2013 1:16 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

This thread keeps coming up as there seems to be a lack of good, independent reviews of audit management software. Where is Consumer Reports for Auditors??

In any event, we have narrowed our selection to one big dog (TeamMate) or two little dogs (Pentana or MKinsight).

Any thoughts on Pentana or MKinsight out there?

Thanks in advance.

Marc

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



Marc LeBlanc


Posts: 14
Joined: Nov 2006

Thursday February 28, 2013 7:32 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

I would like to thank Hugo for providing me with his thoughts on MK insight versus TeamMate. I appreciated our discussion and your opinion very much

Marc

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



lvcynic


Posts: 28
Joined: Dec 2009

Thursday February 28, 2013 12:11 PM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

I used TM back in 2006-7 and MK in 2011-12 and found TM to be exponentially easier to use. What has happened to TM in 6 years is certainly something I cannot answer to, but I would take that older version of TM before I used MK. I thought the set up and subsequent use of TM was vastly superior to that of MK. One recent version of MK did not even allow for hyperlinking and tickmarking. For my usage, the ability to hyperlink a comment or a finding to a document is critical and the ability to tickmark supporting documents nearly as important. My understanding is that MK had a version that could perform these functions, but we gave up on it before having to pay for the upgrade. Our small shop actually tickmarked by hand and scanned docs via PDF into an electronic audit file. That's how much we did not like the MK product we had.

Based on my limited use, I could not and would not recommend MK.

Good luck.

Chris

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



Marc LeBlanc


Posts: 14
Joined: Nov 2006

Thursday February 28, 2013 12:42 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format



<< I used TM back in 2006-7 and MK in 2011-12 and found TM to be exponentially easier to use. What has happened to TM in 6 years is certainly something I cannot answer to, but I would take that older version of TM before I used MK. I thought the set up and subsequent use of TM was vastly superior to that of MK. One recent version of MK did not even allow for hyperlinking and tickmarking. For my usage, the ability to hyperlink a comment or a finding to a document is critical and the ability to tickmark supporting documents nearly as important. My understanding is that MK had a version that could perform these functions, but we gave up on it before having to pay for the upgrade. Our small shop actually tickmarked by hand and scanned docs via PDF into an electronic audit file. That's how much we did not like the MK product we had.

Based on my limited use, I could not and would not recommend MK.

Good luck.

Chris
>>



Thanks for your observations Chris. I appreciate it.

Regards,

Marc

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom

DISCUSSIONS > IIA GENERAL DISCUSSION AREA [ REFRESH ]
The Institute of Internal Auditors • 247 Maitland Avenue Altamonte Springs, FL. 32701-4201 USA
+1-407-937-1100 • FAX +1-407-937-1101 • www.theiia.org