Apache Guacamole vs. ManageEngine Remote Access Plus

Apache Guacamole is well suited for providing remote access and controlling administrative servers/devices in small to medium-scale deployments. Guacamole client is an HTML5 web application, to use it you only need any modern web browser. In my opinion, the developers' choice to use Tomcat/Java made the application somewhat heavyweight with too many dependencies. If we manage to resolve the stability issues we would likely use it for employees' access to their workstations company-wide.

Incentivized

ManageEngine Remote Access Plus is very well suited in environments which consist hybrid operating system. It supports all types of OS like windows, Mac, and Linux. It helps in taking the remote of system and troubleshoot the m if any problem occurs hence engineers do not need to be physically present on the location for the purpose of solving it. It helps to keep a complete track of endpoints that what application, process is being used. It is not well suited in environment where there is no Active directory or SCCM server because ManageEngine Remote Access Plus need agent to work and deploying agent the environment where Active directory does not exist is a big task. Manually deploying agent on every system is very time taking and need so much of effort.

Incentivized

• Remote connect to Linux OS
• Remote connect to Windows OS

Incentivized

• easy to use and set up
• It allows tasks to be performed in the background, without the user noticing.
• allow on-premise installation
• the way in which teams can be organized

Incentivized

• We have experienced some stability problems (mostly Tomcat related).
• The interface could be a little more user-friendly.
• Certain keyboard shortcuts used by Guacamole GUI are impossible to use in the Firefox browser in out-of-the-box configuration.

Incentivized

• It is an agent based solution which is a major disadvantage. We can not control the system which do not have agent installed on them. Hence this is a disadvantage. Even installing agent is a big task in a large organization.
• Till the agent are not installed on every system we can not have full control over the organization network. Agent deployment takes time hence we can utilize the product with its full efficiency.
• The pricing is very high, and it goes on increasing as we add more technician and endpoints.
• The connection gets drop sometime while controlling in new release because it contains some bugs. We also need to have proper bandwidth for using it smoothly.
• The implementation and deployment takes time and needs proper support from vendor. Sufficient documentation are also not available.

Incentivized

it's easy

Incentivized

My rating is due to the fact that there are still many things to improve, and things that could be opened up a little more to allow the administrator to have greater control, such as being able to have one more endpoint in a custom group, which is essential and cannot be done.

Incentivized

It's easy and free of use, therefore perfect for quick implementations when needed.

Incentivized

We have successfully used noVNC for remote access.

Incentivized

There aren't many others we evaluated on the list, but we actually tested several very good and comprehensive ones, quite flexible, but they either didn't offer on-premises installation or their cost-benefit ratio didn't suit our needs. There were some that had everything, but their pricing plans weren't suitable because they weren't flexible, and our company was in a very high price range for what we required.

Incentivized

• Ready to use within minutes

Incentivized

• Faster recovery of issues from screen sharing
• managing patches without manual intervention
• deploying software to multiple workstations at the same time

Incentivized