ManageEngine Endpoint Central Reviews

The primary use case for ManageEngine Endpoint Central in our company is patch management. It is mainly used for patch management, remote access, and remote management. We use it to plan and organize updates and restarts.

ManageEngine Endpoint Central has helped our organization by providing more clarity about what is happening in the network. It has optimized our operations, making them properly organized. It is simple to use and easy to manage, which is a significant improvement compared to the older Microsoft system we were using.

The most valuable features of ManageEngine Endpoint Central are patch management and remote access and management. The product's interface is very user-friendly and easy to manage.

Many features in Desktop Central are licensed separately. It would be more convenient if they could organize these tools into a single package. Instead of requiring users to choose each feature individually, they could offer a package that includes commonly needed tools.

We have been using the solution for one year.

So far, we have not faced any challenges with the stability of the product.

We contacted their technical support and mostly found their compatibility to be good. However, support can sometimes be delayed due to the two-tier support system, where issues are first handled by the first level of support before being escalated to the second level.

Positive

Before ManageEngine Endpoint Central, we managed basic things through group policies and WCS, an older Microsoft free product. We decided to switch because we needed better reporting and a clearer picture of network activities, especially for auditing purposes.

We took the solution through a local partner, but I am not directly involved with them. Our company uses the product as an end user.

We have observed a return on investment through improved management of patch updates, which was a significant headache with our previous Microsoft system.

Comparatively, the pricing of ManageEngine Endpoint Central is reasonable and cheaper than other options we considered.

This solution is not needed by small companies. However, it is very useful for managing remote sites and offices for larger companies with distributed sites. It would be beneficial if the company could package multiple tools into a single offering, as it would make it easier for users to know what they need.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

On-premises

Other

We use the solution for patch management, Infinity Scan, and deploying iOS images and MDM. We utilize all the modules, especially for USB blocks and policy management.

Patch management features are an important feature. We have more than three thousand machines, so we need solutions to monitor what's happening in each batch. With ManageEngine Endpoint Central, we can manage Microsoft patches and third-party applications from third-party vendors.

ManageEngine should support various browser features, including those that address browser limitations. 

I have been using ManageEngine Endpoint Central for over three years. We are using the latest version of the solution.

I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten.

It is 100% scalable. Ten users are using this solution.

Support provides all the necessary guides and instructions on building, implementing, and deploying the Software Gateway. Whenever I try to reach support, I always get access.

Positive

We have used SCCM from Microsoft. It's like a basic solution without any features.

We work with vendors in Saudi Arabia, making the implementation very easy. The communication and configuration take just three to four hours.

I rate the initial setup a ten out of ten.

I rate its pricing as six or seven out of ten because the app is very expensive.

By applying policies such as SpeedLocks and compliance rules for browsers to block certain websites, ManageEngine Endpoint Central helps manage speed blocking, browsing, and filtering.

It was easy to integrate other tools.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

On-premises

I use ManageEngine Endpoint Central primarily for patch management and managing devices like external USBs and software inventory.

ManageEngine Endpoint Central has its own database to check patches without needing to go to the vendor. Most applications, especially Microsoft products, are included, and patches automatically pop up.

ManageEngine Endpoint Central has limited features because they offer multiple products separately, like Active Directory Manager. The usability is poor as I need to learn how to use ManageEngine, unlike other more user-friendly software.

I have been using ManageEngine Endpoint Central for about one year.

I run ManageEngine Endpoint Central on a small virtual machine and it works as expected without performance issues.

I am unaware of the scalability aspect as we are a small to medium organization with less than two hundred users.

The technical support is good, but not excellent. I last contacted them a long time ago.

I previously used BlackBerry RIM's MDM solution.

There has been no return on investment or measurable benefits for my use cases.

The pricing is cheaper compared to other MDM products, but I don't remember the exact details.

I did not evaluate other solutions. It was a requirement.

Usability is the main issue when comparing ManageEngine with BlackBerry RIM. I would recommend Endpoint Central to others, and I rate it eight out of ten.

On-premises

I use the solution in my company as a ticketing system and for endpoint management. The purpose of the solution is to control user machines for remote sessions, push updates, and inventory management.

The reports provided by the product are an area of concern where improvements are required. The visibility provided by the reports is not very attractive.

Primarily, the product offers only chat support. Support via telephone should be provided to users by ManageEngine's technical team.

I have experience with ManageEngine Endpoint Central for a year. My company is a customer of the product.

It is a very stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. Though my organization does not have any machines, the scalability would be good even if we had more machines in our company. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support is very good. I rate the technical support a seven or eight out of ten.

Neutral

I rate the product's initial setup phase around eight to nine on a scale of one to ten, where one point means it is difficult to deploy and ten points means it is very easy to deploy.

The solution can be deployed in fifteen to twenty days or three weeks.

Two to three engineers were required to deploy the product.

Earlier, my company had to make use of a lot of people to deploy products, especially during the installation of Zscaler, endpoint management, and anti-virus tools. With ManageEngine Endpoint Central, my company doesn't have to ask our engineers to go to the desktops of everyone in our organization to manage the deployment part since we can do it remotely using the scripts in the product. The product has helped reduce the costs attached to the engineers since the deployments can be done quickly with the solution. Deployments like the ones involving products like Zscaler, which would have taken our company two to three weeks to deploy, can now be deployed in a week with the help of ManageEngine Endpoint Central.

The product is not costly. The product is properly priced, especially for SMBs.

The product works perfectly for patch management and software deployments. The tool makes the lives of its users easier, and allows us to deploy any software, like the deployment of Zscaler on our company's machines.

The product's most beneficial feature for IT security posture stems from the patch updates give clear visibility of which machines are installed or missing with the important crucial patches.

The product has streamlined application management because it gives me the list of applications in my network. I get clear visibility using ManageEngine Endpoint Central's software summary report if there is an anti-virus product network and if I need to find out the machines on which it is deployed.

The product is very easy to maintain if you know about the solution.

My company does not integrate ManageEngine Endpoint Central with any other products.

ManageEngine Endpoint Central is a cost-effective product. If you are someone who looks at areas like automation and deployment and feels the need to have the correct type of reports, then ManageEngine Endpoint Central is a good product.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

We have two main use cases of Desktop Central. The first is patching, because we want to keep our systems secure. We install Microsoft security updates using ManageEngine Desktop Central every month. The second case is to deploy applications. We want to install applications to the machines from a central location. Also, we want to give access to users so they can install whatever applications they need using the self-service portal option. When there is a common application used by many users, we publish it to the self-service portal so users can install it themselves instead of contacting local IT. Those are our two main use cases of ManageEngine, but we also use it for other tasks, such as remote connection. Our local IT uses two products: ManageEngine Desktop Central and TeamViewer. We use both to connect to the remote machines. 

We have the on-premise version, but we are looking to move forward to the cloud version once they start supporting data migration—at the moment, they don't support it. 

One of the benefits of Desktop Central is it made the provisioning process simpler because now we have a provisioning package. We have around 1,500 laptops at the moment and all these PCs were provisioned by a provisioning package. In the provisioning package, we have integrated every aspect of renaming, deploying applications, patching, etc., so we simply execute the provisioning package and as soon as it's executed, it will install the management agent. Once the agent is installed, it will take care of all the tasks, so we don't have to sit in front of the computer to prepare the machine. This really helps us to provision the PC quickly with our agent. 

Now, we are going to do a PC refresh. It's a big project for next year. We are going to replace all of our PCs—1,500 PCs—with a new one, for all the users, so we have big requirements for ManageEngine. ManageEngine does a lot of scripting work in the backend—including renaming the computer according to our conventions, distributing applications, patching—so when we prepare the machine, we want everything to be installed and ready to give to the user. We don't want to wait or take more time, so we've now combined ManageEngine with Microsoft's Autopilot and Intune to provision the PCs. PC provisioning is made easier with ManageEngine. 

Another benefit is we have the option to pilot updates with some machines before distributing them to production, and this can be completely automated. We don't have to create said task every time for testing and deployment, so once we scope it, it relieves the time we spend each month deploying patches. It regularly runs in our schedule with the reboot options. We give reboot notifications in a user-friendly manner to employees, with the option to postpone the reboot. This relieves the time that we spend with end users since it's user-friendly. 

One of the most valuable features is patching. They support third-party patching as well, so we don't have to use another product. They support both Microsoft and third-party updates, and this is one of the main functionalities that we use regularly. 

The software deployment feature is also valuable because, once in a while, we need to distribute applications, such as VCO, Office applications, etc. For example, when we prepare a PC for users. We use ManageEngine to perform lots of tasks. 

We also have the option to deploy scripts via ManageEngine. We use some scripts that are to be deployed during the machines' provisioning, to make sure our machines are renamed properly according to the naming conventions we want. For example, for the France region, we want FRP, France Paris, and then the serial number. We want to deploy some script that renames the PC after the machine is provisioned, and we also want to deploy background images, logon screen, logout screen, etc. So we deploy all these policies using ManageEngine.

ManageEngine could be improved by giving customers an option to perform certain actions proactively. Since I was a consultant, I worked on different products and some had advantages over ManageEngine. For example, proactive remediation—you want to proactively check something on the computers and run the script. In ManageEngine, you have the option to run the script, but Intune has the option to do so proactively. ManageEngine doesn't have this. You should have the option to act proactively, not just going ahead and fixing it once it's done. Proactive remediation should be a feature. 

Another thing is, with PC provisioning, they have to make it in a modern way. They have deployment, but it's a very outdated process right now. It's a modern workplace, so you have to provision a PC live, on the go—it's not that you create images and then distribute the image to the machines. Many customers are not using this and, in fact, we are not using it. We use a modern way of PC provisioning. So they have to concentrate on that more. 

There are small glitches, but it's not going to stop you from using the product. For example, when you open the configuration, you may not see the details, but if you refresh the page, you will see them. There are small glitches here and there that we can see. 

I began using this solution about a year ago. In the past, I implemented this solution for different customers, but now I am an end user.

This solution is very stable. It depends on the size of the company, though. For us, it's very stable because we don't have many machines. The overall count is 1,800 to 1,900 machines—our license is for 2,050, but we've currently only utilized 1,900. So our infrastructure is medium-sized, I would say. If you go for 10,000, 20,000, you might have some lagging in the performance, but I'm not sure. 

It doesn't really require much maintenance. You just keep it as you want and regularly do a cleanup of old applications—when you delete, you have a new version of the package, so you might want to clean up the old packages—and that's it. You have automatic cleanup functionalities in the product itself. For example, if you download an update for this month and, after three months, none of the machines require this patch anymore, it automatically cleans up. You have some settings to enable so that you don't have to manually work on the cleanup. 

This solution is very easy to scale. We are trying to create lots of virtual machines in Azure Virtual Desktop, so we might increase our machines by another 100 or 200. 

ManageEngine's support is one of the best, I would say. We have chat support, so I can immediately ping someone in support, from my end product console, and get assistance very quickly. If I have a question, I can ask them directly; if I have technical questions, I can ask them, and they will provide an answer right away. If I write an email, it will take three to four hours. Since I was a support engineer before, I don't normally raise questions, but when I do, I normally get quick replies. Because it's a one-to-one chat, you get immediate responses from the chat window. 

In the past, when I first joined this company, we were using WSUS to patch all of our machines, but we didn't have any control over what patches were installed. We didn't have a proper reporting aspect in WSUS—we could have, but it's very complicated. We'd have to connect the information using SQL Server and pull the information, and that's lots of querying. But with ManageEngine, it's explicit. You go and collect the reports as you want, such as the number of patches installed on a machine or how many machines got a particular update. We even have the option to uninstall patches once they're installed, so we can go back to the previous patch version of the application. 

Another drawback with WSUS is that you don't have the option to scale a reboot. With ManageEngine, we can give reboot notifications in a user-friendly manner to employees, with the option to postpone, and after a certain number of days, you can reboot forcefully. This relieves the time that we spend with end users, who now get a pop-up. You don't have many options with WSUS, but with ManageEngine, you do. 

The deployment process is very easy. It's a combined product, so when you install the Desktop Central EXE, you install the database on the same machine, as well as the web server components like Apache Tomcat and Observer. Basically, when you install the EXE, you just click "next," "next," "next," and then it's done. It's not a big deployment. In terms of planning, you might need a little bit of time, but that's it. It's a half-day or one-day task, not like SCCM where you have to spend a lot of effort and there are lots of technical guides, technical architectural documents, etc. So it's very user-friendly in terms of deployment, I would say. 

The number of people involved in deployment depends on the size of the company. As I was a consultant before, I worked with two people, sometimes with one to six people. So it depends on the company. For example, in our company, we have only two people who manage the platform. To be honest, I cannot say that only one person can install this solution. 

For us, the deployment took two to three days, but it's not a continuous three days. We installed the server component and we installed the distribution server component after two days. So on the whole, we would've spent two to three days, maximum. 

We implemented through an in-house team. 

The pricing is very low, compared to other products. Compared to Intune or SCCM, it's much less. I can say it's a good product for less of a price. 

Intune doesn't really have a price, at the moment, because they integrated Intune with another license for Microsoft. If you purchase M365, you get the license. They've made everything a combo now, so obviously any company will go for M365, which includes everything. That's what our company has, and we don't pay anything extra for it. If you split the money, it would be much less than Desktop Central, so you can't technically compare the two. 

ManageEngine's licensing is not as good. They add new features and they ask for money. For example, they introduced Browser Security, which is an extra add-on. Compared to Intune, you just buy the Intune product and that's it, you have everything in place—browser security, endpoint management, etc. Everything's included with the Intune license, which isn't the case with ManageEngine. That's something they really need to take care of. 

We also use Intune, which offers many functionalities since it's integrated with Office 365. In terms of the experience, it's very light, but since ManageEngine is a completely different product, you have to integrate a lot of things. For example, installing the ManageEngine agent to all the machines if you want to onboard them. In comparison, with Intune, normally when you prepare the machine, it's automatically included, so onboarding is easy. 

Also, since Intune is a cloud service, you don't need to manage any infrastructure and you don't need a server to host the solution. With Desktop Central, you need a server, and that server should be managed by someone else as well, like a GDC team, a server team. 

Both solutions have advantages and disadvantages. For example, creating packages in ManageEngine is easier than Intune. In Intune, you have to create a package and convert it to a package format supported by Intune. In ManageEngine, you can create EXE or MSI—both are supported—and you just upload and create the package. 

ManageEngine Desktop Central is a product that's worth the money. It's easy to install and quicker in action. If you start installing the product today, in a small environment, you will be able to deploy the application in two hours. 

I rate ManageEngine a seven out of ten. They have a lot of improvements to make. 

On-premises

I used to use the solution at my old workplace, and now I implement it in my new company.

The solution's most valuable features are its patch management capabilities, especially for third-party applications, along with quick and easy configuration and deployment processes. The tool's IT inventory management capabilities are a lot more user-friendly than Microsoft Intune, especially if I consider any kind of reporting. The software deployment process is not too bad.

In relation to ManageEngine Endpoint Central, ManageEngine NGAV seems to be completely useless right now. I don't think they have officially released the latest version of ManageEngine NGAV, but I feel that it might get released later, though it doesn't seem inviting at all. ManageEngine NGAV needs improvement.

I feel that the area revolving around the licensing model of the product needs to be made a bit easier.

The stability part of the product has some room for improvement.

I have been using ManageEngine Endpoint Central for three years. My company is a customer of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I know that the tool is used by thousands of people, but my company has a very small network, so I don't know what to say about the scalability feature of the product.

I have contacted the technical support team of the tool a few times. The solution's technical support is fast to respond. I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

The product's deployment phase was extremely easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

I did not seek any help from a third party for the deployment of the product. As I had used the on-premises version for three years, I found the cloud version was just surprisingly way easier to get started. Even someone without any knowledge of IT can probably get the tool to work.

ManageEngine Endpoint Central's license in models is all over the place, meaning you have to pay for each individual extra module or extra user. I have been trying out a lot of ManageEngine products. The pricing of the product is not bad compared to the other similar solutions in the market.

I have experience with ManageEngine Endpoint Central and Microsoft Intune. I like ManageEngine Endpoint Central since Microsoft Intune can come across as a little time-consuming tool.

I would suggest ManageEngine Endpoint Central for a one-man team doing everything in a company, but a single person probably won't survive by taking care of the technical support and implementation of Microsoft Intune.

At my old workplace, I used to use ManageEngine Endpoint Central since I used to operate as a one-man team. At my new job, I saw that we have a small IT group with three to four members who have been working on Microsoft Intune for about a year, and I saw how we had a hard time rolling out everything in the tool since it had a lot of bugs. I decided to show the people at my new job how ManageEngine Endpoint Central can make work easy.

I decided to use ManageEngine Endpoint Central for IT inventory management and patch management.

I immediately started to see and experience the benefits of using the solution in my company. At my old workplace, when I used to use the on-premises version of the tool, I felt that the product was a bit time-consuming. At my new organization, we were using the cloud version of the product during the trial session, after which, during the initial setup phase, I enrolled 150 machines just to show my colleagues how easy it is to manage ManageEngine Endpoint Central compared to Microsoft Intune. Within a couple of days, though not everything was completely patched with the solution, I felt it was pretty immediate to deliver in the area of patch management.

I rate the tool a seven or eight out of ten.

I use only the asset-management part. 

The asset management is a good feature. It's not the best. However, it's a good feature to use.

It is stable and reliable. 

We can scale the product.

The OS deployment could be better.

Technical support from our local partner is not the greatest.

I'm still exploring the solution. There is yet more to uncover.

Typically, if anything was missing, I would put in a feature request. However, I have not done that yet.

I only started using the solution a few months ago.

It is a very stable solution. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze.

It is very easy to expand. You just need to add extra licenses that are required, along with the computer resources. If I add enough computer resources along with the licenses, it's very easy to scale.

We have around 2,000 endpoints on the solution.

How ManageEngine works is they have partner support. In my region, they have only one partner. If my understanding is right, they only have one partner for the full GCC, and the partner I'm with is not great. If you ask me to rate them, it'll be a zero.

The service from the OEM itself, ManageEngine itself, is good. It's just the partner that is not helpful.

I've also worked with VMware. 

We use the asset management from LANDesk Ivanti, although we can't compare all the features as we use it for other processes. 

We had assistance with the setup and only require three admins for maintenance tasks. 

I received professional support for the initial setup.

I don't directly deal with pricing. 

We're customers and end-users. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It's still new to me, and I'm still exploring its capabilities. 

On-premises

We are using it for managing desktops and configurations and compliance.

We are using its latest version. We are all up to date with whatever we're doing. It is deployed on-premises.

It helps with compliance. We're moving into a regulated space, and we need to be compliant and have full control over every device. So, the primary purpose of implementing it was compliance.

Identification of gaps and filling the gaps with updates are most valuable. We are able to identify known updates or missing updates and then update.

Each of their products is an independent product, and they don't have anything to do with each other. It is a suite of packages. They all run independently, and they all are a little different because they were acquired differently. They could standardize their portfolio.

We found the team that supports us to be very difficult to understand because of their accent.

I have been using this solution for a year or so.

It is reasonably stable. I had a couple of issues related to corruption, and I worked with their support, but on the whole, it is reasonably stable.

I'm sure it is scalable. It is currently being used by three users. We are using it daily, and we don't have any plans to increase its usage. It is not for any real negative reason. I just don't have a need. I bought it for what I needed it for, and it is doing what it does.

I had some pretty significant problems, and they were very complicated. I've had a number of conversations with them, but the simple truth of the matter is that there were communication problems with their team because of the accent. We found the team that supports us to be very difficult to understand. They had a heavy Indian accent, and it was very difficult to communicate with them.

Neutral

We didn’t use any other solution previously.

It was of medium complexity. You have to get an agent out for every single machine by hand, or you need to push it somehow. It took a couple of weeks.

We implemented it in-house. In terms of maintenance, it requires a fair amount of maintenance. It takes some time. You have to touch it every week and make sure it is working and pushing the code. You have to make sure you're identifying the gaps and the packages to be deployed. You need to build those packages, deploy them, and monitor which ones didn't fire. It is not an install-and-forget package. It is an install-and-use package.

We have seen an ROI. I would rate it a solid four out of five in terms of ROI. The work that one person was doing by hand for each computer in the company is now being done by it in mass. Its value is large because I could free up that person's time to do other work.

The initial purchase was around $6,000 or $7,000. We most probably are not on an annual subscription. We bought it, and then we pay for the maintenance. I'm not 100% sure how that's working out.

We evaluated a couple, but I can't remember what we looked at.

If I re-implement it today, I'd strongly consider a cloud-based infrastructure instead of on-premise.

It is solid. It is a legacy technology, and it has been around forever. It does what it does. It is complicated, but it works. It is not brilliant, but it is highly functional.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

On-premises