Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

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. 

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.

For me, the primary use cases of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager are in construction and architecture, where I assist in customizing the tools to achieve optimal performance at a confidential level. I have a team for level three and level four, which presents different scenarios and new features available for integration and customization to upgrade the SCCM restriction. I perform all tasks related to the product.

I am most familiar with the software update features. I also have expertise in analytics. In addition, I specialize in software updates and operating system deployment, which involves managing the endpoint solution.

There is room for improvement in one of the areas. Sometimes there are different compartments and problems with the web server, which makes it difficult to identify performance issues. Here, more tools configuration may be needed to address this. However, there are manual logs available for all modules and configuration actions.

There is one feature that is not present, which is antivirus monitoring. I would like to see this feature in the next release and also the integration of the module of monitoring of configuration directly into the configuration concept, to avoid having separate scopes for communication and configuration engineering. This would eliminate the need for multiple dashboards available for managers on the platform.

I started working on the software in 2010. It has been more than ten years since. Moreover, I have worked with all the older versions, and the last version I used was 22.07.

The product is very stable compared to older versions. The configuration is easy to upgrade, and if there is a problem with a combined server, the user can roll back to a previous version. Additionally, there are many tools available for covering different aspects of the product, which makes it a very important configuration.

It is a scalable solution and better suited for big companies.

It is not easy to get good technical support, especially at level one. It is difficult for the support team to understand the scope of the problem and provide specific solutions. The technical support is not good for me, but it depends on the comparison with other software functionalities. It's difficult to find a good support technician at Microsoft.

The initial setup is not complex, and the deployment time can vary depending on the company's size and the deployment's specific needs. Moreover, the solution can be started quickly if you have a server and a schedule with the primary setting.

The maintenance of the solution depends on the scope of the company's usage. For example, a large company may need a tracking system deployment and a team of four engineers for maintenance.

Additionally, there is a need for fees in order to implement changes, and there may be a charge of 30-40% for a different scope.

The price is reasonable, especially if the user has an active directory and can buy a configuration after buying the firmware.

My advice is to check the configuration for each customer, as it varies for each consumer. Staff should be trained to use Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager easily. Configuration is key, and it is used in the good projects of Microsoft. The project is simple, but people who manage it need to think simply.

Overall, I would rate the product an eight out of ten.

The main use case for Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is in the area of desktop management, such as hardware inventory, software, and deployment management.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is valuable in keeping our systems updated. We are able to send updates to all the systems. Additionally, the Intune integration is helpful.

The time the solution takes for updating systems could be quicker. For example, the system information status is not updating as it should. Additionally, the database synchronization querying is slow and could be improved. 

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for approximately 10 years.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is stable.

The scalability of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is great. We are able to extend the solution to multiple site locations.

Typically, we would contact Microsoft for technical support only if the issue at hand is beyond our expertise, as we try to resolve it as much as possible on our own. For more complex technical problems, we would submit a support ticket through Microsoft's email support system to receive advanced assistance. They have provided us with timely support when we needed it.

I previously used ManageEngine and a few others before the use of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager.

The main difference is the price and packages of the solutions. Some of them come as a complete package with VMware software as part of their offering. Depending on the customer's use case one solution might be better than the other. 

One area that stands out regarding Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager over the rest is its reliability.

The initial setup for Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is simple. However, the configuration and management are not simple.

Most of my clients are using the on-premise configuration. Cloud deployment is cumbersome because It requires lots of system communication to open from the cloud, and every client has to communicate with the cloud.

We follow the Microsoft best practices procedure and white papers for implementation. Which includes single and multiple server deployments.

The time it takes for deployment depends on the client's environment, such as the configuration and customization needed. However, the process can typically take two to three weeks to complete.

We use two to three engineers for the deployment of the solution.

The solution can be managed by one engineer. The person involved has to have some knowledge, and they need to be dedicated to the task. Not anyone can do it. It is ideal to have a team for the task.

The solution is helpful for IT teams.

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

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 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.