Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

It is used for software deployments, PC operating system deployments, and security patch deployments.

Currently, we are using it on-premises, but we are slowly moving to the cloud solution that is called Intune or Microsoft Endpoint Management (MEM).

We have high availability for all of our deployments. We can trust this platform for all our deployments. We are quite happy with the fact that we can do what we want to do. It fulfills our goals for all deployments.

It is a very well-rounded product. It is a complete package with all the features using which we are able to manage our PCs very efficiently. 

One area of improvement is regarding the patching of Office 365 products. We have some difficulties on this side, and it can be improved.

Their support should be improved. Mostly, when we are doing patches on Microsoft 365 clients, we need to escalate to Microsoft support. It takes a long time to get to someone in their support team who has good knowledge of the product. Their support at level one is not quite helpful and knowledgeable.

In my previous company, we deployed SCCM two years ago.

And in my current company, I have been using this solution for more than one year.

Its stability is quite good, and its performance is quite good. There is nothing to complain about.

It is scalable, but we are far from reaching that limit. We don't have any problem with its scalability.

We have three people working on the SCCM side. In terms of the implementation, we have 6,000 PCs that have this installed. It is being used daily.

Mostly, when we are doing patches on Microsoft 365 clients, we need to escalate to Microsoft support. We are not quite happy with the support because it takes a long time to get to someone who is knowledgeable. When we have a tricky issue like this, it is very complicated to get appropriate support. We lose a lot of time with Microsoft support before we find someone who is able to understand and resolve the issue. 

Positive

We were previously working with BigFix. I also worked with HPE's solution. As compared to these two products, SCCM is much more integrated with the Microsoft ecosystem. We are fully on Windows, so it is much easier for us to manage our PCs with SCCM. It is easier to have a Microsoft product on Microsoft operating systems.

It is a Microsoft product, and we have an efficient team that is managing the solution. We have a lot of people who have the knowledge of doing its setup. So, deployment is not an issue for us. If you know the product, it is quite easy. You just need the knowledge of the product.

From the beginning to the end, it took about six months. It was deployed on all PCs.

We mainly had two people for its implementation. I managed the deployment, and I had one external resource who helped me in implementing the full product. To implement it, we needed to integrate all of the enterprise applications. This integration of the enterprise applications was outsourced, and there were a few people involved.

For its maintenance, we have a resource in India who is managing the solution. We need one full-time administrator for managing the solution. We also have one person who is integrating new applications and updates with this platform.

Its licensing is quite complicated because we are getting the license not only for SCCM but for the full Microsoft package. We don't need to pay for a separate license. We need to have one license that includes everything we need, such as Windows, Microsoft 365, SCCM, encryption, and so on. So, we don't have a specific price for it. Perhaps, it is good that it includes the full suite of licensing of Microsoft. It is expensive, but we are getting a lot of features.

In the next release, we are moving to the cloud, which also fits the strategy of Microsoft. We would like that the features on the cloud side are very similar to what we have on the on-premise side. We are looking to move to the cloud with Intune, but Intune is not like SCCM in terms of the features. We prefer that they develop all the features on the cloud.

I would recommend others to go for it if they are using any other solution to manage their Windows or Microsoft environment. It will make life easier. I would also recommend others to check the cloud solution before implementing the on-premise solution. They can see what can be done on the cloud. Cloud is not fully ready to replace the on-premise solution, but they can do some of the parts on the cloud and some of the parts on-premises.

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

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 use this solution to apply new group policies.

The solution was particularly helpful for patching the OS, and for the VM in our environment. With 10 branches, we have a huge number of VMs. Using ECM, we can download the new patches one by one, apply and then restore them. It saves us a lot of time. 

The valuable feature is the ability to gain all the data you need. We can collect data and get insight into the functionalities of their scope. As system administrators, we get a summarized report for each site with the installed version of the OS for all PCs in our environment. We know which meet the requirements and which don't. For those that don't, we can mitigate any potential vulnerabilities or threats.

I think managing Linux devices could be improved. It would help our colleagues and other departments like the dev opps, who only use Linux machines to quickly patch their VMs.

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

The technical support could be improved. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. We have six users. 

It's important to keep the database going at all times to avoid any interruption of the service. The implementation must be very well designed because you have to know the scope of your workload and that should be addressed in the action plan before proceeding with the deployment. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

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 on-premises useability is very good.

The solution is stable. 

For the most part, for our needs, the scaling is fine.

Microsoft is already pushing users towards Intune, as opposed to SCCM. It's on the roadmap for them. It's inevitable. SCCM will be on Endpoint Manager in the future. I would say nothing needs to be changed.

The solution is on-premises. The cloud version of the product, if a person needs to be on the cloud, would be InTune, which already exists as an option. SCCM doesn't need to offer cloud features for this reason.

We have used the solution for the past decade. It's been around ten years at this point.

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

SCCM is built for corporate networks. There is some advantage from Microsoft in terms of the content management gateway that we already have so that we can utilize the internet, however, scaling is fairly it's straightforward.

In our company, we have 44,000 devices. We do not need more. Scalability-wise we are good. We are not a company of hundred thousand devices. I'm not looking to scale it more. Therefore, I can't speak to what scalability would be like for those with 100,000 or more devices.

We have a support team that does technical support for us. I don't work directly with Microsoft. I go into priority calls, however, our technical teams manage that. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

We are trying to transition from SCCM to Bigfix.

My understanding is that the installation is a two-day setup, however, I did not personally set it up, and therefore can't speak of the implementation or how easy or difficult it might have been.

I cannot speak on pricing. I let the procurement team deal with it. Therefore, I don't have any information on licensing fees, et cetera.

I have looked at comparisons between Bigfix, SCCM, and Intune. I personally prefer INTune as a solution, however, the company is moving towards Bigfix and away from SCCM.

We are just customers and end-users of SCCM.

We have been using SCCM for the past decade, however, now, the company is supposed to go with Intune for model management. However, we have a new CPO or CSO double hatting with security as well. He's more inclined in Bigfix features, which offer more robust patch management as well as vulnerability scan. SWe dropped the plan to go with Intune and will go with Bigfix, moving us away from SCCM.

Our CPO, CSO is mainly the driver for the change, not because it is on our roadmap or our partnership with the vendor or anybody else.

In general, I would recommend the solution to other organizations and companies. We've been happy with it over the years. I'd rate it at a nine out of ten.

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. 

The primary use case of the solution is to deploy patches, and applications, and upgrade our client operating systems.

Without the solution, we would have to manually install all patches and software and upgrade our operating system with the help of our support team, which would take a long time. With SCCM, this process is automated, making it a highly valuable feature.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to deploy patches to nearly all applications.

SCCM should strive to enhance the accuracy of its reporting functions in order to avoid any issues with incorrect or inaccurate data.

Microsoft could supply an installation guide to make setup easier.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The solution is stable and we have not had any issues.

The solution is scalable.

We have 100,000 people using the solution.

The technical support is good. We can call the hotline or use the website to generate the tickets.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Maintenance for the solution is easy.

I recommend the solution to others.

We mostly use Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for patch management and application deployment. We will check and post a critical or supplement patch if there is a vulnerability.

I like Mircosoft's technical support. Microsoft has a few updates, like some of the critical KBs. They are published within the interval time, and in case of an escalation on the client missions, we will raise a ticket with the Microsoft team. They will create a hotfix or a critical update. They will chat with us, and that is one thing I like about Microsoft. Whenever any issues occur at my organization, they will help you out soon as possible within the SLA.

It would be better if automation options were available. For example, in Nexthink or SysTrack, there is an analytical tool. Creating dashboards would be very easy if you implement the same thing in Microsoft. That report will be a daily cost to the customers and good revenue for our organization. The price also could be better.

In the next release, we need to include some features like tables, dashboards, surveys, services, and metrics in the dashboard. Whatever we are implementing will be downloaded by a report. Apart from the report, we will telecast from the dashboard. It's very easy to compare, and it will be easy to telecast to the end-users.

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for five years.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is a stable solution. There is nothing to worry about. When Microsoft pushes updates or patches, they will be in the W-Sync server. We have some people who will concentrate on Sync's parameters. Apart from that, everything is perfect.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is a scalable solution.

From my point of view, I'm just giving 60% to 70% marks to those who support us with these issues. If there are any new issues, they will check in with the corresponding team, which takes some time. If there are issues with a single machine or server, or it affects the whole environment, they will analyze it from their end and provide a hotfix.

On a scale from one to five, I would give Microsoft technical support a four.

Positive

I would tell potential users that for 15,000 or 30,000 machines, you must go with Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager as it's the best tool. We can install the clients on all the end-user machines. All the data will be recorded in the Microsoft console itself. There's no need to worry if the patching activities will be hygienic, which will be very useful. 

You can go with another third-party software if you're just a small organization with 50-odd machines. The Microsoft license cost is relatively high, but everything will be perfect, stable, and reliable.

The initial setup is straightforward because Microsoft is always user-friendly. They will share the parameters, like troubleshooting steps and the pre-request. They will send the database knowledge-base document to us. It will be a step-by-step procedure. There won't be any worrying or alarming issues with Microsoft. If we have any problems, we will raise a ticket with Microsoft, and the team from Microsoft will help us. We can implement this solution within two or three hours, depending on the bandwidth speed.

On a scale from one to five, I will give the initial setup a four.

We implemented this solution.

The price could be better.

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