Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo

Top 10 Microsoft Configuration Manager Alternatives

Vendor: Microsoft
4.1 out of 5
Badge Ranked 1
Leave a review

Top Microsoft Configuration Manager Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Microsoft Configuration Manager based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Zabbix, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, and Tanium. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. Microsoft Configuration Manager surpasses its competitors by offering comprehensive management of devices and applications across various platforms, featuring robust security measures, seamless software updates, and efficient resource optimization for enhanced productivity and streamlined IT operations.

Microsoft Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Microsoft, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Zabbix
4.2 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Zabbix
4.2 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in software deployment, patch management, and remote control for Windows environments. In comparison, Zabbix, as an open-source tool, offers flexible monitoring without licensing costs, making it ideal for varied IT infrastructures seeking scalable and customizable templates.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Zabbix Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves a higher initial setup cost, while Zabbix offers a more budget-friendly setup, presenting a cost-effective alternative. The contrast highlights Zabbix's appeal for budget-conscious users seeking robust monitoring without significant financial inv...
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves a higher initial setup cost, while Zabbix offers a more budget-friendly setup, presenting a cost-effective alternative. The contrast highlights Zabbix's appeal for budget-conscious users seeking robust monitoring without significant financial inv...
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager facilitates comprehensive management with features like software deployment and patch management, suitable for enterprises. In comparison, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform’s agentless architecture and YAML syntax provide flexible automation, offering scalability and efficiency in diverse environments. Both solutions serve distinct deployment and operational preferences.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a higher setup cost compared to Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, which offers a more budget-friendly initial setup. Users seeking cost efficiency may find Ansible to be the more economical choice.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a higher setup cost compared to Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, which offers a more budget-friendly initial setup. Users seeking cost efficiency may find Ansible to be the more economical choice.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Tanium
3.8 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Tanium
3.8 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager emphasizes centralized control for IT operations, while Tanium excels in real-time security management. In comparison, Tanium provides rapid threat detection, appealing to enterprise environments. Configuration Manager suits those needing comprehensive application deployment and management capabilities.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Tanium Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves moderate setup costs, while Tanium's setup costs tend to be higher due to the comprehensive tools and features it offers, creating a notable distinction in initial investment for these solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves moderate setup costs, while Tanium's setup costs tend to be higher due to the comprehensive tools and features it offers, creating a notable distinction in initial investment for these solutions.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
BigFix
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
BigFix
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager offers a centralized console for system management, excelling in compliance reporting and patch management. In comparison, BigFix provides strong multi-platform support and scalability, with tailored asset management and script capabilities, appealing to diverse environments requiring fine-tuned control.
Download BigFix vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a higher setup cost compared to BigFix, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment, highlighting a significant difference for organizations prioritizing lower expenditure.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a higher setup cost compared to BigFix, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment, highlighting a significant difference for organizations prioritizing lower expenditure.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
VMware Aria Automation
4.0 out of 5
VMware Aria Automation excels in managing multi-cloud environments and third-party integrations. In comparison, Microsoft Configuration Manager efficiently handles Windows infrastructure, offering robust compliance reporting. Tech buyers choose VMware for cross-cloud automation and Microsoft for seamless Windows management and enhanced productivity.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. VMware Aria Automation Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves lower upfront setup costs compared to VMware Aria Automation, which can require a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves lower upfront setup costs compared to VMware Aria Automation, which can require a higher initial investment.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
NinjaOne
4.1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
NinjaOne
4.1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in managing complex enterprise environments with its robust application deployment and Intune integration. In comparison, NinjaOne caters to small to medium-sized businesses with its user-friendly remote management and efficient cloud-based deployment, offering flexible pricing for cost-conscious tech buyers.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. NinjaOne Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager requires a substantial setup investment, whereas NinjaOne offers a more cost-effective implementation with lower initial costs, highlighting significant disparities in setup pricing between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager requires a substantial setup investment, whereas NinjaOne offers a more cost-effective implementation with lower initial costs, highlighting significant disparities in setup pricing between the two solutions.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Nagios XI
4.0 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Nagios XI
4.0 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in system management, providing application deployment and patch management, ideal for Windows-focused environments. In comparison, Nagios XI offers tailored monitoring solutions with plugin support, catering to diverse network needs. Configuration Manager's comprehensive integration contrasts with Nagios XI's cost-effective flexibility.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Nagios XI Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager requires significant initial setup investment, while Nagios XI offers a more budget-friendly setup cost.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager requires significant initial setup investment, while Nagios XI offers a more budget-friendly setup cost.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Red Hat Satellite
4.1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Red Hat Satellite
4.1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in integration for Microsoft-centric environments, focusing on automation and comprehensive IT management. In comparison, Red Hat Satellite suits complex Linux environments with its integration with Red Hat tools and automation via Ansible Tower, providing a secure and cost-effective solution.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Red Hat Satellite Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager incurs a higher setup cost, while Red Hat Satellite offers a lower initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager incurs a higher setup cost, while Red Hat Satellite offers a lower initial investment.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor
4.0 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in automation and centralized control. In comparison, SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor focuses on detailed monitoring and real-time insights. A tech buyer might choose Configuration Manager for seamless integration while opting for SolarWinds for real-time monitoring capabilities.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves lower setup costs, while SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor may require a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves lower setup costs, while SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor may require a higher initial investment.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
ScienceLogic
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
ScienceLogic
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in software deployment and integration within Microsoft systems. In comparison, ScienceLogic provides robust infrastructure monitoring and customizable dashboards. A tech buyer might choose Configuration Manager for seamless Microsoft integration, while ScienceLogic offers flexibility and detailed infrastructure oversight.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. ScienceLogic Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager features a lower setup cost, suitable for organizations with budget constraints, whereas ScienceLogic tends to have a higher setup cost, reflecting its comprehensive monitoring capabilities.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager features a lower setup cost, suitable for organizations with budget constraints, whereas ScienceLogic tends to have a higher setup cost, reflecting its comprehensive monitoring capabilities.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Sonatype Nexus Repository
4.1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in OS deployment and compliance reporting, suiting enterprises with large IT infrastructures. In comparison, Sonatype Nexus Repository focuses on artifact management and DevOps integration, appealing to development teams needing efficient package handling. Pricing and ROI differ based on organizational needs.
Microsoft Configuration Manager may incur higher setup costs compared to the more affordable setup for Sonatype Nexus Repository.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager may incur higher setup costs compared to the more affordable setup for Sonatype Nexus Repository.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
AWS Systems Manager
4.1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in application management and integration within Microsoft environments. In comparison, AWS Systems Manager offers superior cloud integration and automation. A tech buyer might choose Microsoft for its comprehensive IT control, while AWS appeals with its cloud efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Download AWS Systems Manager vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager's setup cost is high, offering extensive capabilities, while AWS Systems Manager provides a more budget-friendly option with scalable features. The price difference reflects their target user base and functionality.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager's setup cost is high, offering extensive capabilities, while AWS Systems Manager provides a more budget-friendly option with scalable features. The price difference reflects their target user base and functionality.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Kaseya VSA
3.8 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Kaseya VSA
3.8 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager leads in comprehensive asset management and automation with strong integration for Microsoft users. In comparison, Kaseya VSA offers competitive remote management features, appealing to users needing flexibility and integration within the Kaseya ecosystem.
Download Kaseya VSA vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager's setup cost is higher, while Kaseya VSA offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager's setup cost is higher, while Kaseya VSA offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
ServiceNow Discovery
4.0 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager is cost-effective with strong Microsoft integration, ideal for automation and compliance. In comparison, ServiceNow Discovery's higher cost reflects its comprehensive features and agentless design, appealing to those seeking advanced discovery and automation capabilities. Each tool's appeal varies based on budget and needs.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. ServiceNow Discovery Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves a higher setup cost, while ServiceNow Discovery offers a more budget-friendly initiation. The expense differences highlight Microsoft's focus on comprehensive system management versus ServiceNow's cost-effective discovery capabilities.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves a higher setup cost, while ServiceNow Discovery offers a more budget-friendly initiation. The expense differences highlight Microsoft's focus on comprehensive system management versus ServiceNow's cost-effective discovery capabilities.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Oracle Enterprise Manager
4.2 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ideal for environments needing integration with Microsoft products, centralizing software deployment and patch management. In comparison, Oracle Enterprise Manager excels in database management, offering robust monitoring and tuning, appealing to enterprises prioritizing database performance and stability.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Oracle Enterprise Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a lower setup cost compared to Oracle Enterprise Manager, which requires a more significant initial investment. While the former provides efficient management at reduced costs, the latter offers comprehensive features that justify its higher setup exp...
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a lower setup cost compared to Oracle Enterprise Manager, which requires a more significant initial investment. While the former provides efficient management at reduced costs, the latter offers comprehensive features that justify its higher setup exp...
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA)
4.4 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in integration with WSUS, OS deployment, and detailed reporting, suitable for environments heavily reliant on Microsoft. In comparison, KACE Systems Management Appliance is valued for its asset management and ease of customization, appealing to organizations seeking versatile deployment solutions.
Download KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager often incurs higher setup costs due to its complexity, whereas KACE Systems Management Appliance offers a simpler, lower-cost setup process, highlighting a distinct contrast in initial financial commitment between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager often incurs higher setup costs due to its complexity, whereas KACE Systems Management Appliance offers a simpler, lower-cost setup process, highlighting a distinct contrast in initial financial commitment between the two solutions.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
SolarWinds Network Configuration Manager
4.1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in operating system deployment and application management. In comparison, SolarWinds Network Configuration Manager focuses on real-time network device monitoring, making Microsoft ideal for IT infrastructure management and SolarWinds preferable for extensive network configuration.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. SolarWinds Network Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a higher setup cost compared to SolarWinds Network Configuration Manager, which offers a more affordable initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a higher setup cost compared to SolarWinds Network Configuration Manager, which offers a more affordable initial investment.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus
4.1 out of 5
SCCM offers comprehensive features suitable for complex environments. In comparison, ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus appeals to smaller businesses with its ease of use and focus on effective patch management. Tech buyers may choose SCCM for robust capabilities or ManageEngine for budget-friendly simplicity.
Download ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a higher setup cost compared to ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, which offers a more budget-friendly setup option.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a higher setup cost compared to ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, which offers a more budget-friendly setup option.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Atera
4.6 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Atera
4.6 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in centralized control with strong reporting and security features. In comparison, Atera offers remote management and automation, appealing to startups. SCCM could improve with non-Microsoft integration, while Atera's cross-platform compatibility benefits small businesses seeking cost-effective solutions.
Download Atera vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically incurs higher setup costs compared to Atera, which offers a more budget-friendly setup. This distinction highlights Atera's appeal to organizations seeking lower initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically incurs higher setup costs compared to Atera, which offers a more budget-friendly setup. This distinction highlights Atera's appeal to organizations seeking lower initial investment.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Automox
4.5 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Automox
4.5 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in software distribution, offering cost-effective solutions for existing Microsoft customers. In comparison, Automox, with its cloud-native architecture, simplifies deployment and provides automated patching. Configuration Manager's on-premises setup contrasts with Automox's simplified rapid implementation options.
Download Automox vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves higher setup costs compared to Automox, which offers a more budget-friendly alternative. This cost difference highlights the contrasting approaches in initial investment for these management solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves higher setup costs compared to Automox, which offers a more budget-friendly alternative. This cost difference highlights the contrasting approaches in initial investment for these management solutions.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
DX Unified Infrastructure Management
4.1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in centralizing management and enhancing security with its comprehensive deployment and inventory features. In comparison, DX Unified Infrastructure Management offers versatile monitoring and detailed reporting, appealing to those needing customizable infrastructure and application performance oversight.
Download DX Unified Infrastructure Management vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves a higher initial setup cost, while DX Unified Infrastructure Management offers a more budget-friendly setup option.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves a higher initial setup cost, while DX Unified Infrastructure Management offers a more budget-friendly setup option.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
HashiCorp Terraform
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in centralized software deployment and system compliance, appealing for its seamless Microsoft integration. In comparison, HashiCorp Terraform focuses on infrastructure as code with key multi-cloud support, ideal for flexible automation across diverse cloud environments.
Download HashiCorp Terraform vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves higher setup costs compared to HashiCorp Terraform, which offers a more affordable initial setup, making it a cost-effective choice for budget-conscious users.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves higher setup costs compared to HashiCorp Terraform, which offers a more affordable initial setup, making it a cost-effective choice for budget-conscious users.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Vicarius vRx
4.0 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Vicarius vRx
4.0 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager offers centralized application deployment and patch management with integration into other Microsoft services, ideal for enterprises with complex infrastructures. In comparison, Vicarius vRx focuses on vulnerability management, providing an intuitive platform suitable for security-driven organizations seeking flexibility and ease of use.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Vicarius vRx Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a higher setup cost compared to Vicarius vRx, which offers a more budget-friendly option. Vicarius vRx provides an economical alternative, while Microsoft Configuration Manager requires a larger initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a higher setup cost compared to Vicarius vRx, which offers a more budget-friendly option. Vicarius vRx provides an economical alternative, while Microsoft Configuration Manager requires a larger initial investment.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
SUSE Manager
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
SUSE Manager
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager integrates tightly with Windows for patching and asset tracking. In comparison, SUSE Manager excels in Linux support and automation, ideal for mixed OSs. Tech buyers may prefer Microsoft for Windows environments or SUSE for diverse and automated systems.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. SUSE Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves a higher initial setup cost, while SUSE Manager offers a more affordable installation process, highlighting a significant pricing difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves a higher initial setup cost, while SUSE Manager offers a more affordable installation process, highlighting a significant pricing difference between the two solutions.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
BMC TrueSight Server Automation
4.2 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ideal for large-scale Windows environments due to its strong application deployment and management features. In comparison, TrueSight Server Automation offers cross-platform support and compliance management, making it suitable for diverse environments needing robust automation and security integration.
Download BMC TrueSight Server Automation vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager generally offers a lower setup cost compared to BMC TrueSight Server Automation, making it a more budget-friendly option for organizations looking to reduce initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager generally offers a lower setup cost compared to BMC TrueSight Server Automation, making it a more budget-friendly option for organizations looking to reduce initial expenses.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Chef
4.0 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Chef
4.0 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager leads in integration and efficiency within Windows-centric environments. In comparison, Chef excels in automation and cross-platform versatility, appealing to tech buyers needing diverse, automated solutions. Microsoft offers cost-efficiency for Windows, while Chef provides significant long-term ROI through automation.
Download Chef vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a significant setup cost, while Chef offers a more flexible pricing model. Chef's lower initial expense stands out compared to Microsoft Configuration Manager's higher upfront investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a significant setup cost, while Chef offers a more flexible pricing model. Chef's lower initial expense stands out compared to Microsoft Configuration Manager's higher upfront investment.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Perforce Puppet
4.1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Perforce Puppet
4.1 out of 5
Perforce Puppet appeals to cost-sensitive enterprises through automation and support, facilitating flexible customization. In comparison, Microsoft Configuration Manager attracts organizations invested in Windows environments with its comprehensive management and integration features. Buyers choose based on their preference for automation versus integration and feature depth.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Perforce Puppet Report
Perforce Puppet offers a more cost-effective setup compared to Microsoft Configuration Manager, which tends to have a higher initial setup expense.
View comparison
Pricing
Perforce Puppet offers a more cost-effective setup compared to Microsoft Configuration Manager, which tends to have a higher initial setup expense.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
GFI LanGuard
4.0 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
GFI LanGuard
4.0 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in managing large deployments with seamless integration and extensive features like patch management. In comparison, GFI LanGuard focuses on vulnerability assessment and patching, offering lightweight asset tracking and easier operation for less resource-intensive environments.
Download GFI LanGuard vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves a higher initial setup cost, whereas GFI LanGuard offers lower setup expenses, making it more accessible for budget-conscious users.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves a higher initial setup cost, whereas GFI LanGuard offers lower setup expenses, making it more accessible for budget-conscious users.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Qualys Patch Management
4.5 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager offers extensive software deployment and device management, suitable for complex environments. In comparison, Qualys Patch Management simplifies deployment with a cloud-based model and excels in advanced threat detection, appealing to security-focused organizations prioritizing reduced attack risks and ease of use.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Qualys Patch Management Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager may have higher setup costs compared to Qualys Patch Management, highlighting a potential initial financial investment difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager may have higher setup costs compared to Qualys Patch Management, highlighting a potential initial financial investment difference between the two solutions.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
AWS CloudFormation
4.2 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
AWS CloudFormation
4.2 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager manages on-premises devices with extensive reporting and centralized control. In comparison, AWS CloudFormation automates AWS resource management using infrastructure-as-code. A tech buyer might choose Configuration Manager for comprehensive management or CloudFormation for scalable cloud-native deployment in AWS.
Download AWS CloudFormation vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager entails a more considerable setup cost compared to the flexible AWS CloudFormation, which offers a cost-efficient alternative with lower initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager entails a more considerable setup cost compared to the flexible AWS CloudFormation, which offers a cost-efficient alternative with lower initial expenses.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
SanerNow CyberHygiene Platform
4.8 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager integrates seamlessly with Microsoft services, making it ideal for enterprises. In comparison, SanerNow CyberHygiene Platform offers robust vulnerability management. Microsoft Configuration Manager is suitable for Microsoft-centric organizations, while SanerNow appeals to entities prioritizing efficient cybersecurity solutions.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. SanerNow CyberHygiene Platform Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves a high initial setup cost, while SanerNow CyberHygiene Platform offers a more budget-friendly setup. This price difference highlights the contrasting economic factors between these two cybersecurity solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves a high initial setup cost, while SanerNow CyberHygiene Platform offers a more budget-friendly setup. This price difference highlights the contrasting economic factors between these two cybersecurity solutions.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Pulseway
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Pulseway
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager provides extensive IT management features suitable for complex environments. In comparison, Pulseway offers ease of use and mobile access, appealing to small to medium businesses seeking flexibility and affordability.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Pulseway Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves higher setup costs compared to Pulseway, which is often seen as a more cost-effective option for initial deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves higher setup costs compared to Pulseway, which is often seen as a more cost-effective option for initial deployment.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Ivanti Security Controls
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in comprehensive IT infrastructure management, benefiting complex IT environments. In comparison, Ivanti Security Controls focuses on robust security and efficient patch management, catering to organizations prioritizing security. Configuration Manager demands complex deployment; Ivanti offers streamlined installation with effective customer support.
Download Ivanti Security Controls vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager has higher setup costs compared to Ivanti Security Controls, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager has higher setup costs compared to Ivanti Security Controls, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
HPE System Management Homepage
4.1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in application deployment and inventory controls. In comparison, HPE System Management Homepage specializes in hardware monitoring. Tech buyers might choose Microsoft for software automation, while HPE appeals to those seeking straightforward hardware management solutions.
Download HPE System Management Homepage vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager often involves higher setup costs due to its comprehensive features, while HPE System Management Homepage typically presents more budget-friendly initial expenses, highlighting significant differences in setup cost and initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager often involves higher setup costs due to its comprehensive features, while HPE System Management Homepage typically presents more budget-friendly initial expenses, highlighting significant differences in setup cost and initial investment.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune
3.9 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager focuses on advanced patching and integrates smoothly with Microsoft tools, fitting well in Windows environments. In comparison, Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune excels in third-party patch management, offering flexible deployment across diverse software landscapes beyond Microsoft products.
Download Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves significant setup costs but offers robust management tools, while Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune provides a more affordable setup, ideal for smaller operations seeking efficient patch management capabilities.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves significant setup costs but offers robust management tools, while Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune provides a more affordable setup, ideal for smaller operations seeking efficient patch management capabilities.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Patch My PC
1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Patch My PC
1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in comprehensive endpoint management and seamless integration within its ecosystem. In comparison, Patch My PC focuses on rapid deployment and agile third-party patch management. Configuration Manager's embedded cost structure contrasts with Patch My PC's scalable, lower upfront expenditure.
Microsoft Configuration Manager requires a higher initial setup investment compared to Patch My PC, which offers a more cost-effective and simpler setup process.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager requires a higher initial setup investment compared to Patch My PC, which offers a more cost-effective and simpler setup process.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
OpenText ZENworks Configuration Management
4.0 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager seamlessly integrates with Microsoft ecosystems, excelling in Windows management and offering cost-effectiveness for existing Microsoft users. In comparison, OpenText ZENworks delivers extensive cross-platform management, appealing to organizations requiring diverse OS and flexible deployment capabilities. Buyers choose based on integration needs and platform diversity.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. OpenText ZENworks Configuration Management Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager has higher setup costs compared to OpenText ZENworks Configuration Management which offers a more cost-effective initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager has higher setup costs compared to OpenText ZENworks Configuration Management which offers a more cost-effective initial setup.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager
3.8 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager offers deep integration into Microsoft ecosystems with strong patch management, appealing to enterprises with Windows environments. In comparison, Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager provides broader endpoint support and flexible patching, attracting those needing cross-platform coverage and responsive customer service.
Download Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager often involves higher setup costs, while Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager is typically regarded as more economical in initial investments. The choice between them often hinges on budget constraints and initial setup priorities.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager often involves higher setup costs, while Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager is typically regarded as more economical in initial investments. The choice between them often hinges on budget constraints and initial setup priorities.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
vCenter Configuration Manager
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in patch management and application deployment with strong Microsoft product integration. In comparison, vCenter Configuration Manager is ideal for virtual machine management and disaster recovery, offering superior capabilities in managing virtual resources and maintaining high availability.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. vCenter Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves higher setup costs compared to vCenter Configuration Manager, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment advantage.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves higher setup costs compared to vCenter Configuration Manager, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment advantage.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
PDQ Deploy
1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
PDQ Deploy
1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager, ideal for large environments, offers advanced management features. In comparison, PDQ Deploy provides quick setup and intuitive automation. With higher initial costs, Configuration Manager suits extensive needs, while PDQ Deploy's affordability appeals to smaller organizations seeking rapid deployments.
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves higher initial setup costs compared to PDQ Deploy's lower upfront expenses, highlighting a significant difference in pricing approach between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager typically involves higher initial setup costs compared to PDQ Deploy's lower upfront expenses, highlighting a significant difference in pricing approach between the two solutions.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Ivanti Patch for Configuration Manager
3.8 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager provides comprehensive automation and seamless integration for enterprise device control. In comparison, Ivanti Patch for Configuration Manager focuses on security, enhancing compliance and offering quick setup. Microsoft appeals to cost-conscious buyers, while Ivanti attracts those prioritizing robust security.
Download Ivanti Patch for Configuration Manager vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager has lower setup costs, while Ivanti Patch for Configuration Manager requires a more significant initial investment. The price difference highlights variations in budget considerations for potential users.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager has lower setup costs, while Ivanti Patch for Configuration Manager requires a more significant initial investment. The price difference highlights variations in budget considerations for potential users.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
ManageEngine OS Deployer
3.0 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in enterprise integration, offering comprehensive endpoint security, which attracts companies with existing Microsoft commitments. In comparison, ManageEngine OS Deployer, with its cost-effective pricing and specialized OS deployment capabilities, appeals to smaller organizations needing efficient management and flexible deployment options.
Microsoft Configuration Manager incurs a higher setup cost compared to ManageEngine OS Deployer, which offers a more cost-effective solution with manageable initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager incurs a higher setup cost compared to ManageEngine OS Deployer, which offers a more cost-effective solution with manageable initial expenses.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Syxsense Manage
1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Syxsense Manage
1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager suits established settings with comprehensive management and tight Microsoft integration. In comparison, Syxsense Manage is apt for dynamic environments, offering cloud-native deployment and intuitive remote management. Microsoft provides robust security integration; Syxsense ensures cost-effective, flexible device management.
Microsoft Configuration Manager entails a substantial initial setup cost, contrasting with Syxsense Manage's lower entry expense, highlighting ease of budgetary considerations.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager entails a substantial initial setup cost, contrasting with Syxsense Manage's lower entry expense, highlighting ease of budgetary considerations.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
VMware vCenter
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
VMware vCenter
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in software pushing and centralized management, valued for integration with Microsoft solutions. In comparison, VMware vCenter is favored for virtualization and efficient resource allocation, ideal for managing virtualized environments. Tech buyers might choose based on their virtualization or deployment needs.
Download Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. VMware vCenter Report
Microsoft Configuration Manager requires a higher initial setup cost, while VMware vCenter offers a more affordable setup option. Users often consider these cost differences when choosing between these software solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager requires a higher initial setup cost, while VMware vCenter offers a more affordable setup option. Users often consider these cost differences when choosing between these software solutions.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
SolarWinds Patch Manager
1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in integration within Microsoft environments, offering comprehensive IT management. In comparison, SolarWinds Patch Manager provides effective patch management with ease of deployment. Tech buyers choose Microsoft for extensive capabilities, while SolarWinds appeals with cost-effective and rapid ROI in patch management.
Microsoft Configuration Manager has higher setup costs compared to SolarWinds Patch Manager, which offers a more budget-friendly option.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager has higher setup costs compared to SolarWinds Patch Manager, which offers a more budget-friendly option.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
EMCO MSI Package Builder
1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager dominates in enterprise settings with comprehensive management features. In comparison, EMCO MSI Package Builder offers a user-friendly package creation experience, appealing to businesses seeking simplicity and efficiency. Each solution targets specific needs, from vast enterprises to streamlined packaging tasks.
Microsoft Configuration Manager requires a higher setup cost with extensive configurations, while EMCO MSI Package Builder offers a more affordable and straightforward setup process, highlighting a clear cost and complexity difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager requires a higher setup cost with extensive configurations, while EMCO MSI Package Builder offers a more affordable and straightforward setup process, highlighting a clear cost and complexity difference between the two solutions.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
CFEngine Enterprise
1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels with seamless Microsoft ecosystem integration and effective patch management. In comparison, CFEngine Enterprise shines with exceptional automation and scalability across multiple operating systems, making it ideal for large environments. Microsoft offers lower initial costs while CFEngine promises higher long-term ROI.
Microsoft Configuration Manager offers a straightforward setup cost, whereas CFEngine Enterprise presents a more scalable pricing structure.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager offers a straightforward setup cost, whereas CFEngine Enterprise presents a more scalable pricing structure.
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
RemoteExec
1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager Logo
RemoteExec
1 out of 5
Microsoft Configuration Manager, with its deep Microsoft integration, offers comprehensive management but longer setup. In comparison, RemoteExec enables efficient network task automation with simpler deployment. Tech buyers may prefer Configuration Manager for ecosystem integration or RemoteExec for quick, cost-effective execution.
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a notably higher setup cost compared to RemoteExec, making it a pricier option. RemoteExec offers a more affordable initial setup, attracting budget-conscious organizations.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Configuration Manager has a notably higher setup cost compared to RemoteExec, making it a pricier option. RemoteExec offers a more affordable initial setup, attracting budget-conscious organizations.

Related categories

Server Monitoring
Configuration Management
Patch Management