ManageEngine Endpoint Central Reviews

I used it about six months ago. We implemented it in the last company I worked with. We were using it for patching, rolling out images, and other similar things.

We were using the most recent version.

I like being able to image over the network. That's a nice feature that it has. Patch management is pretty decent on it as well.

The only problem with it is that the setup isn't very intuitive. I know that they just upgraded the product to make it a little bit easier to use, but compared to some of the other platforms, it is not easy to configure it, set it up, and get it running. However, once you have set it up and got it running, it runs great.

Once it was set up and running, there were no issues with it. It seems to run fairly well.

It is scalable. I was the admin for this system, and we probably had over a thousand end-users. I was the only one who knew how to use it at the time.

Their tech support was pretty good. For any issues we had, they'd come in and work with us and get them resolved pretty quickly.

Its setup isn't very intuitive.

We had perpetual licenses. The cost was around 36,000, and then you'd have the yearly maintenance fee of 2,000 or 3,000.

They have a service where they come in and configure it or do the setup for you for a price. I don't remember the price, but it was pretty reasonable. If you're not familiar with the platform, that might be a good thing to go with, especially if you don't want to go in and do the ifs and buts trying to set it up. It would be a lot easier if you had them come and set it up for you. With all the alerting and everything else that you have to set up with it, it takes a minute to get it up and running and have everything the way you wanted.

I'd give it an eight out of 10. I was really happy with it.

We deployed ManageEngine Desktop Central mainly for the patching of systems. Additionally, we have used it extensively for doing ad hoc software deployments, making changes to systems, such as if we need to deploy a registry fix. The solution also allows us to have local repositories. When we do a deployment at a local operation, everything is deployed locally from within that operation. We do not have to use the network to receive anything.

We do not use it for remote assistance very much, and the reason is we use ScreenConnect. I know that the Desktop Central remote control works. The other thing that we use Desktop Central is to receive quick access via the command line. It's very convenient that we can open a command prompt on a remote host.

We have seen a lot of benefits in reporting, we are able to pull a lot of information. For example, we can go ahead and pull out a report saying how many Windows 11 machines are in the organization, how many machines are missing patches that are older than 60 days, and how many machines have a specific version of the software.

ManageEngine Desktop Central automatically alerts you if there are newer releases or updates. You do not have to go to their website and check.

Your agents or your assets that are managed by ManageEngine Desktop Central, if you have a relay server, the agents will work over the internet. If there is an asset, then there is some vulnerability. As long as it's powered on and connected to the internet, it doesn't need to be on the corporate-wide area network. As long as it's on the internet, you can go ahead and manage it.

ManageEngine Desktop Central should keep up with some of the features that other major vendors are providing, such as Microsoft. 

If this solution could include the MDM component, then it would be a very strong contender with the other competitors.

The OS deployment of the solution could improve, I tested it before, and it was weak.

I have been using ManageEngine Desktop Central for approximately four years.

The stability of ManageEngine Desktop Central could improve. We have found that at times it can become a bit unstable. We have had issues with that in the past, but not much lately. 

The performance of the solution is good.

The solution is easy to scale. What you need for your scalability is to have more assets. You can scale the resources, such as the processor and memory. The way to scale would be doing the repositories at sites.

We have approximately five IT users using this solution in the organization.

We have been using ManageEngine Desktop Central extensively in my organization but in the last year or so more we have been focused more on the SCCM. We plan to increase usage as the company expands.

I've spoken with technical support in the past. It's a hit and miss, depending on who you speak with support. Some agents are very strong and some agents tell us to read an article and come back if we have any more problems.

The technical support could improve by being more consistent.

I have used other solutions in the past.

We do our software deployment based on a logical grouping of computers. ManageEngine Desktop Central provides the ability to create groups or a collection of computers. That's what they call it. If we can create the collection, of the software we've just uploaded to ManageEngine Desktop Central, it synchronizes it against all repositories. Then based on that collection, we only need to tell it to deploy that piece of software to the computers.

We can also use another tool for deployment that Desktop Central has which is really nice called the self-service portal. We have a list of applications that are common and ones that are not. The applications that not every user uses. For example, in the SAP GUI, not everybody uses SAP. We can have it published in the self-service portal and if the user needs it, they can deploy it themselves.

We use one person for the deployment of the solution. However, the deployment difficulty and time depends on a few factors, such as the size of the collection, how many computers are you deploying it to, how many users, and what is the size of the package and their complexities. Usually, once it's all replicated and the agents are online, if we tell it to deploy, it's almost immediate. Additionally, we do deployment based on off-hours, we can do them immediately or we can schedule deployments.

When the solution is up and running it does not require a lot of maintenance because it uses PostgreSQL, they have routines that manage the database. The only thing that you need to keep your eye on is the size of the repositories because as you patch more and you deploy more software, the size of your repositories grows and you need to keep a watch on this.

We make everybody else look good. We have received a return on investment because we were able to deploy applications a lot easier where we do not have to get the field services team involved.

The solution is very affordable.

The nice thing about ManageEngine Desktop Central is that when it's time for renewal, you can increase your footprint by the number of assets you're managing. I can scale up and down based on the size of my organization.

My advice to those wanting to implement this solution would be if they have a small IT department and they do not have strong IT people, ManageEngine Desktop Central is pretty simple to deploy. The complexity is not as big as an SCCM or some of the other products.

In terms of training, there's a lot of things on YouTube that tell you exactly how to do it. There is some good documentation from ManageEngine Desktop Central. It is very simple to deploy and get it up and running.

I rate ManageEngine Desktop Central an eight out of ten.

With that solution, we can push patches out. We can deploy software, and it tracks our inventory. We can do OS deployment with it. That's about all that we use it for right now.

The patch management aspect of the solution is the most valuable part for us.

Overall, our experience has not been good.

In terms of the software itself, it's just kind of hit or miss as to whether or not it works. I've had to spend a lot of time with their port trying to get to work.

Technical support is not reliable. 

The solution isn't fully stable, and, when it goes down, it's hard to get it up and running.

The initial setup is complicated.

I've been using the solution for five or so years. It's been a while. 

I wouldn't say that it's stable. We've just had problems. Due to the fact that it's pretty complicated, to me anyway, and then when it does go down, it takes a while to get it working again.

The technical support, like the software, is hit or miss. Sometimes it takes a long time to get anything done. We would prefer it if they were more reliable. We're not satisfied with the level of service we get.

The initial setup is rather complex. It's not really straightforward. 

I can't speak to their exact pricing. I don't have any information on that.

We are customers and end-users.

From Manage Engine, we're using just the Desktop Central and the Log 360. Desktop Central does not happen to be the MSP.

We are using version 10.1.2119.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend the solution to others. I would advise users to keep looking into other options.

I'd rate the solution at a four out of ten. We haven't been very happy overall.

We use it for Windows patching, third-party application patching, and third-party application deployment. 

The advantage of this solution for us is that it has basically centralized all our IT support, both remote and on-prem. We no longer need to do a lot of sneakernet. We're basically doing full remote support with it.

This solution has many valuable features. It's a complete product that allows you to remote troubleshoot, has an inventory of systems, as well as other things. We own the entire suite. The UEM suite allows us to deploy Manage Patching, Deploy OS' as well as MDM Management. We use the entire Swiss Army knife of the product. We use some other ManageEngine products and there's seamless integration between them. They've implemented in-application support so you can type a question to support and you'll get a real time reply, which is great. They really listen to their customers and try to proactively support them. They're constantly listening to feedback and making improvements on the product. It's one of those things where they listen to the customers and they're constantly evolving the product.

There are occasional glitches but they deal with it very quickly and efficiently. They've actually just rolled out a whole new endpoint security add-on that includes the features I've been looking for. 

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

The solution has been fairly stable. It's evolved over time and they've come a long way. It's been a consistently stable platform. We've previously used things like WSUS and Intune for Window Patch deployment, ManageEngine is by far easier to use than those products. 

This is a very scalable solution. It's deployed to our entire organization, so that's about 400 users.

The technical support is great. The challenge is that sometimes support has to go back to development and the lead time can take a while. It's no different to any other company. They're all going to do the same thing. I'd much rather have them fix it right the first time versus coming back constantly with band-aids.

The initial setup is easy. You build a server, you install, you run the executable, it installs. It has a self-contained database and it does its own thing. You're up and running in 10 minutes. Obviously, like any product, it's going to take you time to evolve the product, to use the product, to get to know the product, but you can be up and running in as quickly as 10 minutes.

The cost is fairly reasonable for what you're getting. As an end user, you always want everything for nothing, but the reality of the matter is you get what you pay for so I think the price is fair. If you compare it to things like other patch management and third party tools, I'd say the price is probably fairly good.

We've looked at a lot of solutions and, value for money, this product can't be beat. They're always packing more features into it. We've looked at a couple of other products and they're just more cumbersome to set up and more expensive.

It's worth taking a good look at this solution because I think it's a really good product and it has a lot of features. It has a lot of value added and they have great support.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We have been using ManageEngine Desktopcentral UEM edition in our organization for a year now. We have 1,2000 employees on 80 domains in more than 20 countries around Africa and the world. Its always been an issue to effectively manage such a complex environment. We have changed toolsets every 3 years due to shortcomings in the products. Maintaining patching compliance or standardizing security policies are almost impossible without an application to assist. 

Things like enforcing a baseline security compliance become more important every year and now with WFH, the system needs to easily cater for it. To add to the problems of managing a large environment we have to look after mobile devices too. With desktop central, we have been able to maintain patch compliance across our entire estate. Manage software licensing and deployment. Enforce minimum security compliance. Work towards a zero-touch environment with automated deployment and custom scripting. We have used the image capture and deployability to do remote deployment of OS in remote areas where previously we would have to send out a person. 

DesktopCentral allows you to do desktop support without interrupting the user, by using remote event viewer or remote CMD a desktop technician can do troubleshooting without the user knowing. This allows for a more professional and modern way of doing IT support. Integrating into ManageEngine, ServiceDesk Plus has created even further efficiencies by allowing the user to use the agent's self-service portal to request software, create a workflow to have approvals in place, and let desktop central automatically deploy the software once it's approved. 

DesktopCentral also pulls all the CI information from a users machine and keeps a history of things like Software, Hardware, warranty and shipping date. This information gets passed to the ServiceDesk to populate the asset management portion of the desk. Keeping everything “OS Management” in one portal makes life for the engineer easier, the engineer doesn’t need to jump between multiple systems to achieve basic tasks. We also have a vast verity of OSs from windows 7,8,10, Server to CentOS, Ubuntu, and macOS which we are required to manage. DesktopCentral allows for our engineers to offer the same level of support across all platforms, all domains, all networks all the time.

Basic tasks like setting up USB locks on specific departments can be done in as little as three minutes. We have used DesktopCentral to run scripts that enable BitLocker across certain departments and it passes the encryption key back to the security tab within the DesktopCentral portal, this really saves a lot of time and extra expense on third-party tools. We have also locked down all systems for specific applications like BitTorrent and disabled automatic updates also in under three minutes. Maintaining Patch Compliance too.

The ability to run event viewer, task manager, services, command, file browser, certificate all remotely without interrupting users is the most valuable aspect. Software deployment and prohibiting, allowing us to standardize on the software that has been deployed through the environment and then prohibiting illegal software such as torrent applications has been valuable. We have also used the in-depth data gathered from each machine to enhance our Asset management and CMDB and created an array of scheduled reports to keep BU managers unto date on their IT.

I would like to see more click to complete actions such as - USB lockdown for Mac, the ability to check AV compliance on servers, bit locker controls, printer tracking or print page tracking, self-help for self-healing like "BMC my IT" and more options in the self-service menu other than just software - maybe add integration in ADSelfService at the self-service menu. 

I would also like self enrolment page for agent-based deployment like that for the MDM or modern management options. A physical location for agent-based machines like on modern management.

I have been using ManageEngine for one year.

In the year we have run it, its never gone down.

It performs well, the report module is the slowest of the system but its acceptable.

The support team needs work, I have waited months for an answer to some of our requests.

Yes, the solution didn't offer enough options for the complexity of our environment.

The initial setup is straightforward - it's all self-explanatory.

In-house using white papers and previous tooling experience.

We have been able to reduce the amount of people needed to support the environment because of automation ability.

Setup costs are very little, pricing is reasonable and licensing can get complicated but it isn't rocket science.

Yes, Kasaya and SolarWinds.

I recommend trying it for 30 days, you will be surprised.

Desktop Central has been used to solve the following problems within the organization I have implemented it into:

1. Ensures that the inventory of hardware and software is accurate.

2. Ensures that the configuration of this hardware and software is in alignment with organizational policies and procedures.

3. Ensures the vulnerabilities of hardware and software is understood.

4. Ensures that the remediation of these vulnerabilities is planned and accomplished.

5. Sustainably build secure devices rapidly.

6. Create policies and procedures that are easily repeatable because of the use of a powerful all-inclusive tool.

Desktop Central has improved these organizations and this is why it has been repeated multiple times at multiple organizations. If something works and is getting better it is worth repeating.

Because of Desktop Central, these organizations now have an accurate inventory of software in their organizations and can control what software can be on their devices and cannot. They have an authoritative and living inventory of devices and know who is using them. These devices and this software can be reliably configured in alignment with standards. Vulnerabilities are identified and remediated rapidly and devices are able to be rapidly imaged.

This platform is powerful because of the following:

1. It combines many powerful functionalities into one user-friendly and intuitive interface. 

2. The scope of the platform makes the platform worth spending the time to train users on.

3. The platform is easy to train others on and because of these efforts with the platform can be replicated making the team more agile and effective.

4. Granular access can be provisioned so users can have access to the tools and systems that are needed for a user and not everything they do not need.

Computer imaging is powerful but breaks frequently. The reason for this breaking is not clear and requires heavy amounts of attention to keep operational. There is a lot of room for this tool to do more but the reliability of this process should be focused on first to ensure core competencies are being fixed before more features are added. 

Support, when a problem happens, is not efficient at responding to problems and resolving issues efficiently. This is difficult because the time when we need this to be at its best is when we are having a problem and this has compromised our confidence in the product because support might not be confident in resolving issues when they come up.  

I have implemented and operationalized Desktop Central at two organizations that I have had lead technology strategy for over the past 5 years.

Several parts of the solution are very stable and other parts require additional focus on stability.

Desktop Central becomes more and more dependant upon the initial architecture of the platform the more and organization needs to scale up and out. There appears to be no onboarding process that accounts for accommodating users that want to ensure the initial architecture is invested in properly.

Our customer service and technical support experience has been lackluster and were are keen on seeing this improve.

Other tools were used and we switched because the other solutions were weak in some areas and support was unable to help when bugs were found, services were unreliable or when services stopped working for no reason. 

The initial setup for someone new to the platform is complex. This is especially true for more refined setup areas. 

In-house development. Difficult time finding vendor teams that are trusted and can bring expertise and efficiency. I would be interested in even using a resource like this today to help continue in adoption. 

Setup requires you to really roll up your sleeves and to dig in to connect the dots to get things up and running. Resources are not easy to find that are experts in deploying this platform and getting it fully up and running. The more you can refine the deployment the more value that the platform provides and someone that has never deployed this platform will see a high barrier of entry to accomplish these finer elements.

Other options were evaluated and as the market evolves they continue to be evaluated.

We use this solution for Patch Management, IT Asset Management, and Remote Control on Network Computers.

We adopted this solution by replacing GFI LanGuard.

Current version of Endpoint central has great capabilities over patch management and software deployment. Also we can take advantages of many system tools and configurations for day to day work.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the Patch Management.

The Patch Management functionality needs still improvements. No provision to control network traffic. 

The Deployment scheduler needs updating to support various methods for deployment.

We have used this solution from 2012 onward.

Solution is very stable and has great featurs that can be used by system admins.

The product has great capabilitied only the should understand the patching process more deeply to avoid failures and client system issues such as OS corrupt, continuos patch failed, system hanging etc.

Support needs improvement. They totally realy on customers at present.

Neutral

GFI LanGuard has poor capicity and feature for patch deployment. We find many client computer OS getting corrupt due to improper patch deployment.

It take a while to understand the process for us.

We implemented in-house.

Manage Engine Licensing policy is best among all. You should always take 10% less licenses than projected. I will advise to learn and implement the solution in-house rather than buying initial setup service.

GFI LanGuard

You can limit the admins and users for the Endpoint Management to reduce the cost.

I like that we can manage everything totally in one dashboard. We can install software easily. Anyone can handle the installation. It's got good documentation. 

The setup is pretty simple. 

It's scalable. 

The technical communication needs to be better. They need better technical support.

The solution is expensive. 

I've been using the solution for one to two months. 

The product is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. I'd rate the stability eight or nine out of ten based on its reliability.

It is scalable. It is simple to expand. I'd rate its ability to scale eight out of ten. 

Technical support has not been great. I haven't been pleased with their ability to assist when we need help. That said, there are some technicians that are good if you can get a hold of them.

Negative

It is easy to set up the solution. I'd rate the ease of implementation nine out of ten. It is not overly complex. 

It is a pretty expensive solution. With one being cheap and ten being expensive, I'd rate the affordability at a nine out of ten. Compared to other products, it costs a lot. 

I'm a customer and end user. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I'm pretty happy with its capabilities.