Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

SCCM is used to manage both users, and your devices. It's an administration tool used for endpoint protection.

I would like to see more automation.

I have been using SCCM for three years.

We are using the 2019 version.

SCCM is a stable solution.

I have not scaled with this solution. I use it for a specific reason.

I have never contacted Microsoft technical support. I use our internal support.

I was not involved in the installation of this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate SCCM a seven out of ten.

We use it and our clients use it for device patch management, servers, and management processes.

We deploy it for clients but we don't usually maintain it for them.

The best thing about SCCM is the patch management. You can make sure that all of your devices are there. You can see all of them and see your levels.

It lets you know what your infrastructure is like and what state you are in.

SCCM internally works great. On your internal infrastructure, it is fantastic. It gives you everything you want it to do.

Because of the way SCCM is, we are moving to the Intune platform similarly to the way that everybody else is. Microsoft is slowly migrating SCCM to the new Intune product for management.

There are so many issues with SCCM, but they are already working on migrating the desktop to the intune platform. They have already improved the management and the patch management. They are also looking at cloud integration and being able to deploy it in Azure properly and run the Azure infrastructure.

The main or legacy issue is not being able to do remote management of devices without being on a VPN to get their updates. It didn't work well on non-corporate networks. This has been resolved by the new Intune platform.

It's Microsoft, they have their issues, but they are getting better. They are integrating it with their office products, and their platforms.

In the next releases, I would like to see them make it easier to do remote sessions into the boxes.

It would be nice to have everything in one place. Now they have Intune for the desktops and SCCM to handle their servers.

I have been using SCCM for ten years.

We were using some of the older versions.

The stability is only as good as your infrastructure.

The scalability of SCCM is good but now that it is on the intune platform, it's even better.

The usage and how extensively it is being used depends on the client and the client's roadmap.

As gold partners, you have a direct line to Microsoft technical staff. It is easy for us to get support.

Our experience with the support is a positive one.

I have been using Zabbix for ten years. I have deployed it in my infrastructure.

I have integrated it with Grafana.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

Depending on the customer and their infrastructure, it could be easy. If it is a small infrastructure the installation could be quite quick. You could fire up SCCM, sent the probes, let them detect it, and put it in. 

For large infrastructures or complex networks, it can be more difficult. It can take as long as a day to get it all set up and running or it could even take a week.

One of the joys of SCCM is that one person could easily maintain it but we have two people from the service desk.

They are always changing their price model, which I don't like. It would be better if they didn't keep adjusting their price model.

The price model is different for every client. It depends on the corporation, the company's subscription balance, and how many machines they have. For us, it fluctuates. 

Some clients have a smaller infrastructure, and for those with large infrastructures, it will cost them more. Others will also have multiple versions of it for backup and failovers.

I was looking for a comparison to see if I want to propose them to some of my clients.

If you are implementing from new, go with Intune directly, don't use the on-premises version.

With the transitioning state to the cloud versions, I would rate SCCM a seven out of ten.

They have handled desktops very well but they haven't transitioned servers very well.

I like its ease of use. It does what you need it to do, and it's a one-stop-shop for the company and for all your deployments. If you incorporate Intune into it, you can have both. You can bring your own devices and corporate devices, and everything runs out of SCCM and Intune.

They should improve their anti-malware policies like the SCEP policies. For instance, you can't have different policies for different servers, there is only one policy in all the servers, and everything is covered under that. 

For example, say you want to scan one group of servers on Saturday, and then you want to scan another group of servers on Sunday, you can't do that. You have to scan all your servers, a regular scan or a full scan, on the same day and at the same time. That's definitely one thing they need to resolve. 

In the next release, it would actually be nice if they included Apple products. It will also help if you can use Intune again. Their compliance reporting feature could also be better. They can maybe work a bit on that for patching now.

It would be better if SCCM came with the functions of Right Click Tools built-in. If SCCM would have all those functions already built-in, we won't have to go and spend $5,000, just as an add-in from another company to get those functions.

I have been dealing with SCCM for nine years.

I used to be the SCCM administrator for quite a big company that had 80,000 people. That's pretty much all I did all day, every day.

BigFix is the poor man's SCCM. It's for people that can't afford SCCM and for small and medium-sized businesses. There's nothing else out there that can do what it can do.

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

We use this solution for image and software deployment.

It wasn't very user-friendly.

The reporting is not very good.

It was hard to effectively manage with one person.

I have been using SCCM for ten years.

We have version 2012.

It's a stable product. In terms of our experience with any bugs, glitches, or crashes there were not more than what is normal for Microsoft.

SCCM does not scale well, which is one of the reasons we are not going to continue to use it.

We have six people in our organization who are using it.

I have not had any contact with technical support.

Previously, I did not use another solution. SCCM was the only one that we used while I was there.

The initial setup is complex.

You need more than one person to manage the environment.

We are currently evaluating some EDR alternatives.

I would not recommend using this solution. I didn't really like anything about it. In general, I am not a fan of Microsoft.

I would rate SCCM a four out of ten.

The administration of the solution is very helpful.

It offers many of the same features other solutions would offer. It's very similar in scope.

The solution has been very stable over the years.

The product is capable of scaling.

Technical support is very helpful and very responsive.

It is a bit of an old and outdated product.

The cloud would have been the best improvement and already Microsoft is looking into it. They are moving into the cloud and all it will make the product better. There's a roadmap in place, from what I understand. We'll move ahead toward whatever Microsoft decided to deploy.

The solution is mainly used for client management and software deployment. However, there maybe should be a more self-service experience. Microsoft may be addressing it in their cloud-native solutions, as currently a lot of administrative tasks are still needed. Automation would be helpful in those cases. If they could add more automation, that would be ideal.

I've used the solution for the last eight to ten years or so. It's been almost a decade. I've worked with it for a long time. 

The solution offers good stability. there are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance overall has been very good.

A company can easily scale this product if they need to.

Technical support has been amazing. It's Microsoft and their bread and butter is understanding their product. They built this technology and therefore can offer amazing support. At any level, for any questions, they can support you. We've very satisfied with the level of assistance they've provided.

I've also evaluated VMware, which would be a good option for companies that are not dealing with a lot of Microsoft applications.

We're just a customer and end-user.

We use the latest version of the solution. I can't speak to the exact version number.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's an incredible product.

I would recommend other companies to go ahead with whatever the latest cloud option is on offer. That is due to the fact that there is no SCCM as a product now. They have already transformed it into Microsoft Endpoint Manager. 

If a company is heavy on Microsoft products, like Office 365, this is the right tool, however, if not, if they are not a Microsoft centric organization, then maybe they can explore VMware as well. 

The product is quite good. We are happy with the collaboration of SCCM with Patch My PC, which allows us to do patchwork.

While the solution is quite good, it can be difficult to understand the logic of this product when it comes to software inventory.

Upon examination of the on-premise and Azure environments, I feel that SCCM could be more flexible.

While the issue of documentation is not exclusive to SCCM, it can be improved. When it comes to Microsoft Office suite, it is not always clear to where the articles have been moved and the use of a built-in searching giant to find their whereabouts is not always a possibility. When the article is moved to a new location, it can make it challenging to find what I deem to be useful or interesting. 

I believe we started using SCCM in 2003.

Microsoft technical support used to be better. In spite of us being a premier customer, we find the support unsatisfactory. The qualifications are not at issue, but the excessive time it takes for them to react, investigate and provide us with answers is.

When it comes to technical support, it is a crapshoot. I know how Microsoft works from the inside, as we used to work for the company. There are times when we will speak with a person who is really qualified and interested in helping and the case can be closed in the course of a single remote session or call.

At other times the ticket is apparently not rotated to the right person. In such cases, we will encounter someone who is merely being polite, towards the end of keeping the customer engaged but without the ability to help. 

Pricing is not in my work description and is left up to management and my colleagues. 

Since I cannot think of anything in need of improvement concerning SCCM, I would rate it as a ten out of ten.

We use this solution to deploy all of the packages to the workstations.

The scalability to deploy the package.

The App to upgrades to the server needs to be improved.

We have used SCCM for a couple of years.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable solution.

It's a scalable product. We have 1,000 users in our organization.

We have plans to continue using this solution.

Technical support is fine. We have no issues with support.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's easy for us.

We have a team of four to deploy and maintain this solution.

We completed the installation ourselves.

It took one week to deploy and customize it.

We have to pay for a license.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using this solution.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use SCCM to access user data.

Basically, my requirement was to get the data from wherever it was available within the organization. SCCM helped identify how many computers we had, what software was loaded on it, what different types of data were available, and so on. It helped us a lot when it came to extracting the data.

It uses detailed descriptions of the workstations, and that is good for me.

I think SCCM can improve whatever details they shared with the integration partner. There was a lot of junk software and data. There should be flexibility to allow us to extract the data we require. In other words, the flexibility of accepting the specific data that we are looking for.

I want the system to provide some dependency relations. For example, you have a laptop, and you start working on it. If I can be informed that you're using the laptop at work, other machines that are dependent on this laptop will be able to provide that dependency relationship. I would like to see the relationship between different machines.

For a small-scale industry, the storage capacity is good. However, the performance and storage capacity could be better.

I have been using SCCM for a while as part of an integration project.

We are running almost 5,000 machines, and it was working fine from a performance perspective. 

Technical support is good.

The initial setup was straightforward and took us about a week to deploy this solution. The strategy was simple. We just had to do it in the same plugin, and we actually did learn on the job each day.

We used an integrator, and we still use them regularly or even daily. We might use them for other integrations as well.

I would tell potential users that SCCM is a good solution if their focus is on the number of computers and laptops they have in the company.

I used it for the first time, and it was good. But users should know what kind of databases they are using and if the integration has sufficient rights to access that data.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SCCM a seven.

We use this solution to test out VMs.

The ability to make collections and deploy to them has been great.

The ability to integrate MDM would be great.

We just set up our lab, so we've only been using this solution for three months.

So far, we've had no issues with bugs or glitches. 

SCCM is highly scalable.

I have not had to contact technical support.

As someone who is quite familiar with IT, the initial setup was quite straightforward. It would definitely be complicated if you're not familiar with IT.

Presently, I am using a free trial version. 

I really like SCCM. I am constantly learning new things all the time. So far, it seems pretty straightforward.

It's a good product designed for medium to large-sized environments that need to automate their deployments and set them in an organized manner.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.

In most cases, it is used by us to deploy software or manage configurations of certain applications.

We are pushing the WSUS updates through it and getting the normal systems grouping. 

You can do your software package through it and you can create and run scripts.

The database should be made to be more stable and robust, but not so much the configuration.

I am not sure if it is just bad administration and maintenance, but it fails quite a lot.

For me, it's the database, or maybe it's the maintenance overhead. It could be that it requires a lot of maintenance. If you don't maintain it, things could go wrong, this is my assumption.

We have been using this solution for a couple of months.

We are using the latest version.

It is not always stable. When it works it works, but It has a very sensitive database and it almost always crashes when we use it, especially if you don't take care of it.

I can't really say that the scalability is good or bad because I haven't had to do much of it.

I have never used any other similar product.

It is easy to install and quick to deploy.

We have admins to maintain this solution.

We didn't really evaluate other products.

We are more of a Microsoft house. It works out better to use these products.

As I have not used any other product, I can't say that I would or wouldn't recommend SCCM. If there is anything better, I would like to know.

It works, but the database fails almost every time. I would rate SCCM a seven out of ten.