I'm not sure I understand the more-heat-than-light criticisms of LibGuides.
It perfectly fits the needs of many libraries.

The most valid criticism that has been lodged -- that the CMS is so easy to
use that librarians create content which they then don't maintain -- could
be said of any website or CMS (except for the "so easy" part). The
counter-argument might be that library content is better maintained in
LibGuides than in other systems because librarians are not buffaloed by the
underlying technology and willingly (happily) use them as part of their
everyday workflow. Has anybody done that research?

There were also several comments that Springshare support is not
responsive. That has never been my experience. Some things might take
longer to implement because programming is involved, but the support staff
have been exemplary and every feature request I've made has been
implemented or explained (in no b.s. terms) why they were unable to fulfill
it.

And, yeah, what Wilhelmina said.

Tom