ManageEngine Endpoint Central Reviews

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. 

The solution is implemented in a medium-sized company. We're working with the enterprise edition.

The solution is deployed on-premises and on the cloud.

The patch manager is good and it's easy to use. There's a good learning curve. It's easy to deploy and can be implemented in a short amount of time.

The MDM feature isn't very good. It doesn't support Amazon vendors.

I have used this solution for seven years.

It's stable.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support is very good.

Compared with VMware Workspace, ManageEngine Desktop Central is a better product.

It's easy to set up.

I would rate this solution as 10 out of 10. 

It's stable and there are no bugs. It's a very good solution. 

We don't yet use it in our office. It is for our customers. We have implemented it for a few banking customers in the middle east, and we are now waiting to also use it for our internal purposes.

In terms of technical capability, it is doing very well. It is doing better than other industry products. It is at a place where we can compare it with Microsoft products. Its scalability is also good.

Its licensing should be improved.

I have been using it for almost two years.

It is stable.

It is scalable by nature. It supports two models: on-premises and SaaS.

I would advise any organization that wants to implement Manage Engine to pick the right components of Manage Engine during the design stage itself, such as Patch Manager or Mobile Desk Manager, and then go ahead with the implementation. 

I would rate it a seven out of 10.

We are in the testing phase of ManageEngine Desktop Central. 

ManageEngine Desktop Central's most valuable features are remote desktop control and image management. We can send things out from the desk here, it is a very good tool for us.

The reporting analytics could improve in ManageEngine Desktop Central. However, there are some third-party add-ins or modules you can purchase to do reporting analytics.

I have used ManageEngine Desktop Central within the last 12 months.

We have had sales support from ManageEngine Desktop Central and they have been very helpful.

The initial setup is straightforward. My manager is in the process and there have not been any problems.

ManageEngine Desktop Central should not require a lot of maintenance that we have seen in the short time of our usage.

I rate ManageEngine Desktop Central a nine out of ten.

My main use case of Desktop Central is for patch management, software deployment, and inventory.

Desktop Central has solved multiple problems for us, including providing patch management so we can get ISO 27001 certification. It also means that we can deploy to all of our machines at once.

The most valuable features of Desktop Central are patch management and deployment.

I would like for the next release to be available as SaaS.

I have been working with this solution for three years.

Desktop Central is stable.

This solution is easy to scale.

My experience with technical support has been good.

The initial setup was generally straightforward and easy, though there can be difficulties if your organization has offices in multiple locations. On average, deployment takes around fifteen to twenty days.

Desktop Central is affordable for any customer.

Desktop Central is a very good, functional solution for endpoint management. I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

I'm currently using this solution as a configuration manager, for patch management, and scheduling the batches to run automatically, as well as OS deployment, MDM, for install agents on other computers, to allow us to see the software in the inventory.

Patch management is the most useful aspect of the product.

The initial setup is easy.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is very good. 

Technical support could be better. They should increase their hours of availability so that they are easier to reach and it's more convenient for us.

The pricing could be a bit better. 

They must change project management on Service Desk Plus to make it possible to integrate with Microsoft Project on Service Desk Plus and to increase the results on Google maps, on the Mobile Management, so that we can track our mobiles devices. Right now, it's not integrated with Google maps. This is a major issue.

I've been using the solution for four years.

The stability of the solution is very good. the performance is reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. there are no bugs or glitches. 

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can.

While you can live chat with technical support, they are only available for maybe seven or eight hours a day. If you have a problem at night they aren't available. 

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. It's not a problem at all in terms of being able to handle the implementation. 

I handled the implementation myself. If did not need the assistance of any integrators or consultants.

It's my understanding that the pricing is pretty high.

We're a partner. 

I am currently working with both cloud and on-premises deployment models. 

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten.