Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| Split ‘n’ Close | Ticket History | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | images | images |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | Split ‘n’ Close | Ticket History |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.0 ★ | 4.0 ★ |
| Total reviews | 82 | ★ 523 |
| Free plan | — | ★ Yes |
| Pricing | Multiple plans available | Free |
Split ‘n’ Close and Ticket History are evenly matched on rating (4.0★ vs 4.0★) — the differentiator comes down to pricing fit, feature breadth, and which app's interaction pattern suits your team's workflow.
On pricing, Ticket History offers a free tier (Free) while Split ‘n’ Close starts at Multiple plans available. The free option meaningfully reduces evaluation cost, particularly at low usage volumes where the entry-paid tier can outpace the value delivered.
Ticket History has the larger user base (523 reviews vs 82), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Split ‘n’ Close's smaller cohort can be an advantage for niche workflows where the bigger app has accumulated bloat.
Recommended evaluation path: install both apps' free tiers (where available) and run them in parallel on a small cohort for 7-14 days before committing. The data tables below show the per-feature breakdown — for most support teams the deciding factor will be a single integration or workflow detail that's hard to compare from listing pages alone.
This verdict is generated from the live marketplace data on this page — rating, review count, pricing tier, and category position all refresh from the canonical Zendesk Marketplace listing every 24 hours. AppRanks does not accept payment to influence comparison outcomes; the methodology is documented on the About page and applies identically to every pair on the site.
Read each app's audit: Split ‘n’ Close audit • Ticket History audit
No tracked changes.
Ticket History is the cheaper option — it offers a free plan (Free). Split ‘n’ Close starts at Multiple plans available. Both publish their pricing on the Zendesk Marketplace; AppRanks mirrors what's listed on each refresh cycle.
Split ‘n’ Close (4.0★, 82 reviews) and Ticket History (4.0★, 523 reviews) are essentially tied on rating. Look at review velocity and individual reviewer quotes — both visible on each app's detail page — to differentiate.
AppRanks cannot separate these two on rating — both sit at 4.0★. Ticket History does carry the larger published review base (523 vs 82). Read both apps' detail pages for the feature breakdown and recent listing changes.
Both apps are one-click installs from the Zendesk Marketplace. Ticket History has the deeper published review base (523 vs 82), which often — though not always — accompanies better-tested setup docs. AppRanks doesn't measure setup time directly: read the recent reviews on each app's detail page for user-reported install experience.
Split ‘n’ Close typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (82 reviews). Ticket History typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (523 reviews). A larger review base generally means the app has been exercised at scale — relevant if you are processing high volume or handling enterprise compliance requirements.
Migration support varies by app and category. Split ‘n’ Close and Ticket History both publish their export options on their marketplace listing pages (or in their support docs); some apps offer one-click import from competitors, others require CSV. The fastest check: search "import from Split ‘n’ Close" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
