WHMCS or Clientexec

[supportfacility]

Our many clients use WHMCS also few are using clientEXEC. We use WHMCS too. It is handy and popular too. Many hosting providers provide it to their clients with hosting plans.

 

[myreseller]

WHMCS is much better than CE. CE is to basic.

 

[dtzhosting]

WHMCS. nice and simple and easy to use.

 

[gigerack]

WHMCS. Simple and easy to use.

 

[WHostingForest]

Certainly WHMCS

 

[Optid]

I use WHMCS and it works wonders for me.

 

[ModulesGarden]

Maybe You should try something fresh? Like Hostbill ? I have migrated FROM WHMCS and I'm really satisfied.

 

[CannyBill]

MOD NOTE: Advertising is not allowed in forums other than the marketplace.

 

[jamjam]

WHMCS all the way

 

[rs2host]

WHMCS
is best
have sevral functions

 

[fun99]

WHMCS is better option for hosting billing solution

 

[TravisBMA]

Yeah Im split between WHMCS and HostBill. WHMCS is more well known and less bugs, but HostBill is more in tune to VPS providers. ClientExec on the flip side is good for standard business practices. Not so much for a host anymore.

 

[David Vazquez]

WHMCS! :smash:

Enough said. The features speak for themselves. Also, the fact that it can integrate seamlessly with your existing hosting template, it works like a charm.

I say this from experience. I personally used ClientExec and it's terrible. Just the fact that it's so, how do I put this, ugly. Bear in mind that it has the same features as WHMCS but it still sneaks somewhere behind WHMCS.

Also, MANY hosting companies use WHMCS so you can purchase/use in confidence.

Best regards,
David Vazquez

 

[Artashes]

I personally used ClientExec and it's terrible. Just the fact that it's so, how do I put this, ugly.

ClientExec is nowhere near being ugly. If anything, the design is actually high-end. I think calling it that way is unfair to say the least.

 

[TravisBMA]

Well it's not necessarily ugly as it is being cluttered. The design is okay but it's pretty difficult to setup if you've never used it.

 

[David Vazquez]

Well it's not necessarily ugly as it is being cluttered. The design is okay but it's pretty difficult to setup if you've never used it.

That's what I was looking for. It's very difficult to setup. WHMCS is clear and to the point.

 

[Surmounted.NET]

I'd have to say WHMCS.

I've used both, and at the end of the day WHMCS just does the job better. (IMO)

 

[CGIwire]

We (CGIwire) currently use ClientExec, however are going to be moving over to WHMCS within the next week.

 

[instavps]

WMCS has served us well.

 

[HostHop4]

Clientexec

I would have to say clientexec is great.