ALM Assets Table VS Computer CMDB Table

[GChat]

Hi There,

We've been making changes with our computers and I'm running into a small issue between the CMDB Manager and the Computer Class owner over which table I should be basing my numbers off. ALM_ASSETS vs CMDB_CI_COMPUTER.

Can anyone help me with how to choose between the 2 and what is the best option?

I know Alm Assets contains more of the financial and Lifecycle info but what are the main differences between the 2 and which do you generally run your numbers off?

[YaswanthKurre]

Hi @GChat ,

• Use alm_hardware when your focus is on ownership, lifecycle, and financials of asset.
• Use cmdb_ci_computer when your focus is on technical configuration and operational state.
• For a complete picture on reporting, consider joining both tables using the alm_hardware.asset field that links to the CI in cmdb_ci_computer.

Please mark this as helpful and correct.

Thanks,

Yaswanth

[GChat]

thanks for reply.

But in terms of just reporting overall numbers which one is best to use as both table are not matching and are 1.5K difference at the moment so which to use as best overall number is confusing

[YaswanthKurre]

Hi @GChat ,

It is best to use alm_asset usually.

Thanks,

Yaswanth

[abby_singh786 · Accepted solution]

Hi @GChat ,

Choosing Which Table to Report On

1: Define the Purpose of the Report

• If your report is operational (e.g., how many active devices are discovered, incidents per laptop, OS distribution) use cmdb_ci_computer.
• If your report is financial or lifecycle-related (e.g., asset aging, assignment, lease expiry, device refresh planning) use alm_asset.

2: Understand the Link Between the Two

• Each record in alm_asset (if created properly) should reference a corresponding CI in cmdb_ci_computer using the CI reference field.
• But not all CIs have a linked asset (e.g., discovered test VMs), and not all assets have CIs (e.g., new in-stock devices).

3: Validate Your Data

• Cross-check: Run reports to identify how many assets have linked CIs and vice versa.
• Understand the data health: Missing links can skew your reporting.

4: Align with Use Case Owners

• CMDB Manager will advocate for data in cmdb_ci_computer due to accuracy via discovery.
• Asset Manager/Owner will prefer alm_asset for lifecycle and ownership accuracy.

The ideal solution is to create a joined report:

• Start from alm_asset and pull in fields from the linked CI (alm_asset.ci) - that way you get both lifecycle and technical data.

Recommendations

1 - Use alm_asset as your base when the report involves:

• Lifecycle stage (In Use, In Stock, Retired)
• Financials (cost, depreciation, PO)
• Ownership (assigned to, location)
• Compliance (e.g., warranty expired)

2: Use cmdb_ci_computer when you need:

• Accurate hardware/software specs
• IPs, hostnames, discovered data
• Real-time status from Discovery

Common Pitfalls

• Assets not linked to CIs → leads to missing data in joined reports.
• Duplicate CIs from multiple discovery sources (SCCM, JAMF, etc.).
• Over-reliance on either table without data governance.

Action Plan

• Run a data audit:
  • % of assets linked to CIs.
  • % of discovered CIs without assets.

• Define business KPIs:
  • Choose table based on what’s being measured.
• Propose a unified report:
• Use alm_asset as the base → join cmdb_ci_computer via ci field.

Regards,

Abhishek

Should my response prove helpful, please consider marking it as the Accepted Solution/Helpful to assist closing this thread.