Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

We use Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for application deployment and patching. We run the gamut, and we use it for quite a bit.

To do what we are doing with the configurations manager manually would be impossible. We have over 100,000 systems, and it simplifies a lot of what we are doing. The reporting aspect allows you to report on patch compliance, etc. It just simplifies a lot of things.

I like a lot of the reporting capabilities and baseline configurations.

Some of the capabilities aren't fully developed yet. It's an ongoing work in progress. I think they are making some steps in the right direction as far as managing workstations centrally, like Intune. 

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for over ten years.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is stable.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give stability a nine. 

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is very scalable. We probably have 150,000 users right now.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability a nine.

The initial setup is a bit challenging. We have a relatively complex environment. It's a little bit more complicated than it might be for a smaller environment. It can be relatively straightforward, but there are some twists in our environment.

We implemented this solution.

I would tell potential users that it's a worthwhile solution for any company that has to manage a lot of systems. It's a great tool.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager an eight.

We use the solution for remote control, patch management, and software deployment. 

The tool's most valuable features include security updates and patch management, which are critical functions for maintaining security. The automated software distribution and the ability to manage deployments are also highly useful. Enforcing compliance with set policies on systems is another key functionality we leverage.

The solution should incorporate AI. It should also incorporate real-time capabilities. If we could get real-time information about challenges or issues, it would allow us to take immediate action. For example, with the recent outage caused by the Windows issue, having a real-time warning system could have helped us avoid or reduce the downtime we experienced.

I have been working with the product for eight to ten years. 

I rate Microsoft Configuration Manager's stability a ten out of ten. 

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten.

As a main competitor to Microsoft Configuration Manager, I've used Ansible quite extensively as an alternative. There are also other products like those from Ivanti or Jamf. From an automation standpoint, we've tried Ansible and Chef as competitors. However, doing a direct function-by-function comparison is difficult since they all have different capabilities.

Our team is highly skilled, so it seems fairly straightforward from my perspective. However, the difficulty likely depends on skill levels.

The solution is expensive. Microsoft Configuration Manager would likely be considered high-priced for small businesses because they may not fully utilize all of its features and capabilities.

The solution is mostly for enterprises. Smaller businesses can opt for Microsoft Intune or other third-party products. I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. 

I am using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for patch management and asset inventory.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is it's incredibly simple to configure and execute changes in bulk, allowing for seamless deployment. With this solution, you can easily track the status of all modifications and send them with ease, making it a comprehensive and efficient solution for any necessary adjustments.

The assets have reached their end-of-life, and patching them is a complex and laborious task. It would be highly advantageous if there were an integrated solution that provided distinct options for each end-of-life asset, streamlining the process and facilitating comprehension.

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for approximately one and a half years.

I rate the stability of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager an eight out of ten.

We have approximately 10,000 users using the solution.

I rate the scalability of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager a ten out of ten.

I use Tanium in parallel with Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager. Tanium is a similar solution that has features, such as asset patching, and encryption, and can be configured around Microsoft assets.

The initial setup of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is simple.

There is an annual license needed to use the solution.

This tool is helpful for Microsoft assets but it is important to have clear visibility before implementation. It can be a complete solution but a plan.

I rate Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager an eight out of ten.

We were replacing SCCM. It's been easy enough to do in terms of getting the devices and seeing what's being discovered from that type of info. We're looking for hardware and software data coming across. 

The solution is helping us by bringing the hardware details on it, and it's a software install. That way, we can account for the devices and identify and understand what is actually installed do the computers. 

It's very easy to use and understand. 

The solution is affordable.

It is stable and reliable. 

We've found scalability to be good.

Technical support was helpful and responsive.

The setup is simple and pretty standard. 

We'd like additional data related to security and the configurations of the hardware. 

On some hardware, we'd like an easier way to get peripherals attached. 

I've been using the solution for about six months. I haven't used it for that long. 

It is stable. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale well. We weren't surprised about anything. It does what needs to be done. 

Technical support is excellent. When we had a question, we got prompt answers. We are quite satisfied with the level of support. 

Positive

The initial setup was pretty standard. It was not complex. 

We have witnessed an ROI.

The pricing is good. I'd rate its affordability eight out of ten. It could always be cheaper, however, we are pretty happy with the cost.

We are not on the latest version. However, we're getting to upgrade the product.

You need to understand what type of data you need and what it can pull. That's part of the configuration that needs to be done at the outset. If you know what you want and you make sure the system can do it, and it's configured right, and you'll be happy.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use this solution for software updates, patching, and application installs. We're using the current version.

This solution is deployed on-premises, but we also deploy it on the cloud.

About four or five people use this solution in my organization. We have plans to increase usage.

It helps us with deploying security updates to our servers monthly.

The ease of usability is the most valuable feature. It's user-friendly.

I have used this solution for two years.

I would rate the stability as 10 out of 10.

I would rate the scalability as 10 out of 10.

I would rate technical support as eight out of ten.

I used WSUS before SCCM or Endpoint Configuration Manager.

Initial setup was complex. There's a lot that goes into it.

Deployment was done in-house. About four people were needed for deployment and maintenance.

We have seen a return on investment.

I would rate the cost as eight out of ten.

I would rate this solution as 10 out of 10.

They're always improving. If you're interested in implementing this solution, my advice is to do lots of research online first so you know how to use everything.

We use it to manage our enterprise desktops and laptops. Most of our enterprise computers are managed using this platform, but we also include some mobile devices. It allows us to manage our desktops effectively with policies in place. I estimate that over 50% of our laptops are managed using this platform.

Endpoint Manager is valuable to our organization because it allows us to connect to our enterprise from remote locations securely. The most useful feature is its robustness and scalability. It is highly scalable and flexible, allowing us to use it in various environments. Additionally, we can specialize the policies related to each device group. This ensures that each group has access to the applications they need for their work and non-work hours.

Microsoft Endpoint Manager has incompatibility issues with some Linux versions and most of our programmers are using Linux operating systems. This creates a challenge for administrators in terms of managing the Linux operating system. For example, Fedora and Kali Linux are two of the most popular Linux distributions among developers, and so policies need to be fine-tuned to work properly on these systems. The solution should be more compatible with different versions of Linux. 

I have been using Endpoint Manager for two years.

The stability is good.

The solution is highly scalable.

The technical support is awesome.

Positive

Before switching to Microsoft Endpoint Manager we used a trial version of ManageEngine, but it was very costly compared to Microsoft Endpoint Manager. We switched because we already had the Microsoft Developer ecosystem in our environment, and we got it at a really low cost being a bundled product. Manage Engine is a worldwide solution that specializes in endpoint management. It is on the same level as Microsoft, but Microsoft has an upper hand in terms of budget.

The initial setup is straightforward. We had a team of three people that configured and deployed Microsoft Endpoint Manager. 

We deploy this software in our endpoint computers, most of the staff computers and laptops, as well as 50% of the staff laptops that are signed out. We are also trying it on some mobile devices to see the results before rolling it out to all mobile devices. 

The implementation was completed in-house.

We have seen a great return on investment using the solution through time saved. Most of our enterprise computers are equipped with advanced features and internet access is for the most part open. To increase the working throughput of staff and employees, we use endpoint managers with reduced fees and separate policies to ensure they only have access to useful applications during working hours. This has actually increased productivity in terms of time saved.

Microsoft Endpoint Manager also provides a return on investment by helping us save money. For example, if we want to deploy other solutions, we would have to subscribe to them. And some of those solutions are hardware-oriented, while others are software-oriented. By using Microsoft Endpoint Manager, we can save money by purchasing these solutions together.

Microsoft provides a steep price for their enterprise products, but they offer very competitive pricing for their legacy customers. We have been using Microsoft products for the past six to seven years and have found that the cost is considerably less than if we were to purchase a single product. For example,  ManageEngine is passed on to us at an individual price, which makes the overall cost much higher.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Maintenance is required for some client requests because a few of our cases involve clients reporting issues with their applications. We need to maintain their laptops because they usually run into issues while running other applications. However, in the case of personal computers, there is no problem. We can maintain them with only 20% of the typical maintenance requirements.

I would recommend that everyone try out the Endpoint Manager solution from Microsoft. It is a great product because it integrates well with Microsoft products, which most organizations use. This reduces the number of integration and troubleshooting problems. Even if Microsoft products are not used in an organization, I still recommend this product. Other solutions are available but there may be some integration and troubleshooting problems.

This is a diverse tool so its use case varies. Most people use it for patch management and software distribution, and operating system deployment. It can also be used for policy management and for maintaining a baseline on the computer, depending on the company and its goals. We are consultants and resellers and deploy this solution on the cloud and on-prem. We use Azure for our cloud deployments. I'm a consultant and president and CEO of our company. 

The solution enables significant streamlining and reduces resources from a personnel perspective.

Patching is very effective and reporting is very good. In general, the software distribution and operating system deployment are very good. Most organizations with small support resources leverage it, along with the Azure Autopilot component or the Intune Autopilot component. The customer orders the solution, it's shipped to them, they open it, log on with their Azure credentials and it builds the machine for them as opposed to going to an imaging center, and having a dedicated staff for that particular function. 

I think the asset management component, the TSM piece, could be improved. That would allow them to compete with other products. It's currently very basic and rudimentary because there are no other connectors such as PeopleSoft that you can get.

I've been using this solution for 24 years. 

This is a very mature product so it's very stable. In the 24 years I've been using it, most of the kinks have been worked out. It's all about having a healthy network and a healthy, active directory structure. If those two things are in place, you'll have a really good experience. If not, it will definitely show its head in the SCCM product. 

The scalability is excellent. 

Technical support for SCCM is good. You have to get past the tier one person, but once you get to a dedicated MECM engineer, it's good. The support forums are also helpful. 

If the solution is being deployed by someone with experience, it can be done in about two hours. They're pretty good with hydration kits where you can configure all the prerequisites and all the components, and you're up and running in about two clicks. It's the customer and budget that dictates how complex or how involved a setup is. If they're only leveraging a couple of the core features of the product, it's pretty straightforward, but if they want to use more advanced functions and distribute that out and do low balancing and that sort of thing, it takes a little more time. Generally, clients allow us to integrate for them, we conduct a turnkey training solution, and then they take it over.

Although the solution is not as expensive as Ivanti, the cost is still quite high. Certain licensing arrangements can get you a better deal, but it's still expensive. It's based on a CAL license, so if you have a client on an endpoint, there's going to be a charge. I think it's around $US35 per license per year. It's not too bad. 

If you're new to the solution then it's worthwhile studying the documentation because it's not easy in terms of all the components that make it up such as SQL and so forth. 

I rate the solution nine out of 10. 

The tool's most valuable features are easy patch management and software deployment. We use it because it is a Microsoft product, which makes it more secure and easier to use.

Microsoft Configuration Manager makes it easier to control remote desktops. It supplements other products. 

The tool's deployment can be cumbersome. 

Microsoft Configuration Manager's stability is very good. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

We don't contact Microsoft directly for support. We get support through a third-party vendor. 

I rate the product's ease of deployment a four out of ten. 

A contractor helped us with the product's deployment. 

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.