Lansweeper helps organizations see, understand, and make confident decisions about their technology estate across IT, OT, IoT, and Cloud. Lansweeper automatically discovers and inventories every asset: hardware, software, and user—then connects that data to insights about usage, lifecycle, and risk. This is to create what the vendor describes as Technology Asset Intelligence (TAI): a trusted foundation of knowledge that turns raw inventory data into clear, actionable…
$239
per month (billed annually) Includes 2,000 assets
ManageEngine Endpoint Central
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Desktop Central from ManageEngine is a client desktop management with patching, remote control, and configuration.
N/A
Pricing
Lansweeper
ManageEngine Endpoint Central
Editions & Modules
Starter
$239
per month (billed annually) Includes 2,000 assets
Pro
$439
per month (billed annually) Includes 2,000 assets
Enterprise
Contact Sales
Starts at 10,000 Assets
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Lansweeper
ManageEngine Endpoint Central
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Lansweeper
ManageEngine Endpoint Central
Considered Both Products
Lansweeper
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Lansweeper
Lansweeper lacks in performance when it comes to their helpdesk compared to the others mentioned. However the ability to inventory devices is still superior
Lansweeper is the only one of the above that identifies all Addressable assets, not just PCs/Servers. That is the primary reason this tool stays in my budget. Not being able to see things like Printers, or APs, or switches is why those other tools miss the mark on this need.
Kace and Lansweeper have a similar ability to pull information from machines about hardware and software. They both do a great job of gathering data from equipment.
In short it has more features and its a more robust solution and it works well with those solutions. I am sure it will keep track with Ai and action recommendations in the future as I didnt see any of it on the platform (at least the one we use) I thin that is the only thing …
Microsoft System Center needs to install agents on all IT asset for discovery and sometimes the agents can easily get corrupted. Lansweeper is a SaaS solution and it's easier to deploy to all IT asset that are connected to the network. This save us a lot of deployment time …
Lansweeper is a more mature software. Its ability to scan hardware and software is more to the point and not so full of bad info or junk you don't need. The Helpdesk feature has better options and not locked down to what the creator wants you to see. But the Reporting and …
Though Lansweeper isn't designed as a live network management tool, it's intended as a static Networked Asset Inventory Manager. It does share many functions with other applications, and the reporting tool in Lansweeper is much easier to use and to customize (create your own …
Lansweeper is DRAMATICALLY cheaper than KACE and provides the same level of reporting and inventory of asset data. Where KACE outshines Lansweeper, is Lansweeper has a very minimal software deployment system that requires clients to have direct access to a common file share. …
Lots of solutions were not able to scan platforms outside of Windows and LS was able to at some point. Lansweeper was the most affordable solution at the time when we did our selection. Lots of solutions we're not user-friendly and had way too many menus and configurations and …
For the price Lansweeper easily moved to the top of our list. It is extremely easy to use and manage. The amount of detail it gathers on each asset automatically was amazing. Manually adding an asset is very simple as well. The fact that it will detect peripherals on machines …
The main competitor that are not isted on your TrustRadius is PDQInventory and PDQDeploy, and those two come as a package and they blow Lansweeper out of the water for both software deployment and hardware inventory. That being said, comparing it to the others I see listed: …
Track-It!'s inventory control costs a lot more than LANSweeper. We're happy with the cost and features of LANSweeper compared to Track-It! We do use Track-It! for our ticketing system now. It is robust, full-featured, and blows LANSweeper out of the water. But for …
Two very different products. Snow has agents, Lansweeper is agentless with massively different functionality. Lansweeper will be good for 150 to 200 user businesses, Snow is better for anything larger. Lansweeper has little software recognition beyond Microsoft. Snow has better …
Lansweeper is great for what it does at its price point. However, it has nothing on Labtech. I have been spoiled by the feature rich Labtech and its automation greatness. If you are on a budget and need a robust product that will get the job done. I would recommend Lansweeper.
SolarWinds Web Help Desk is very bare bones and just not a very intuitive interface. The ticketing system was just a pain to work with and setup took ages upon ages to set up. ManageEngine was a nice solution but it also took quite some time to configure properly. It really was …
The price is more affordable and in range. Also came with all the features that company wanted. User friendly interface than the others make more easier to navigate all the features inside. Provide support as well as the others. Also, well-known products when it comes to …
We have selected Endpoint Central especially for the presence of OS deployment module and for the maturity of other components; moreover, NinjaOne doesn't offer an onprem installation, and some customer needed it. However, NinjaOne appears to be more 'modern' in the dashboard …
We selected Endpoint Central because we couldn't manage our patching with SCCM anymore; we noticed it was inconsistent and not working properly. Also, it wouldn't work out-of-network, which is an important factor for us. These products all helped us improve the quality of our …
Endpoint Central has a lot more functionality than PDQ. We've used PDQ for years, but we no longer see the cost as worth it since Endpoint Central handles inventory and software deployment just as well. Having everything in a single interface is also useful.
KACE SMA was beginning to feel quite dated and complicated. Some things started requiring advanced SQL queries to get sorted, and many of our old scripts stopped working because the SQL schema changed over the years. So far in ManageEngine Endpoint Central, I have not needed to …
The other applications perform limited activities such as vulnerability scanning management, but not mitigation in the case of Nessus; Intune controls device access and key management, but does not patch, does not provide remote support, and does not manage access to USB and …
For me, Endpoint Central belongs to the big three (WS1, Intune, Endpoint Central), so it's better in its own third-party app repo, Vulnerabilities report, Script deployment, OS Management, and Communication between the server and the endpoint. Is no worse than WS1 in Endpoint …
We were using Microsoft WSUS and SCCM but they lack reporting depth that ManageEngine Endpoint Central has and also they lack automation features. ManageEngine Endpoint Central complexity is mush less than SCCM and WSUS.
I was not a part of the initial selection process, but I understand the issue was related to cost per endpoint. As a user of the other solutions I would say that the other solutions do have other strengths that ManageEngine is missing. The remote access tools are superior but …
ManageEngine Endpoint Central is an on-premise
unified system. All modules are integrated into one central interface and detailed
reporting capability. It’s possible to manage all devices regardless of their OS
ManageEngine Endpoint Central is better than these products because of user experience and easy functionality. When I evaluated other products, I faced difficulty in exploring their features and there were too many things to do before a simple deployment unlike ManageEngine …
We evaluated multiple endpoint management solutions before selecting ManageEngine Endpoint Central, and the main reason for choosing it was its strong patch management capabilities combined with centralized endpoint control at a competitive cost. Compared to other solutions, …
Manage Engine is in a different league if I have to compare. Also, I am very secure, as most of what we do is very Security-oriented. It's not just a ticketing and remote support system; it's a Global Systems Monitoring, Updating, Securing, and Remote Support System that makes …
Remote Access Plus Cloud is a native cloud solution, lightweight agent and very competively priced. It supports both entra-joined and cloud-joined devices and has a comprehensive set of basic featues that I need. Though spotty, the system manager is fantastic, when it works and …
Because of its slowdown as we have acquired more equipment, I think LANSweeper may be better suited for smaller environments. We have 3000+ users and over 1500 devices on our WAN. It has shown considerable performance issues as we have grown. Maybe moving it to a full blown SQL instance will make things a bit better. But as it stands, it has gotten tiresome waiting for it to update and refresh.
I think most scenarios are well-suited to Endpoint Central. Keep third-party applications upgraded, OS Deployment, Report Endpoint with vulnerabilities, check compliance with CIS, but it is much more, internal app deployment, much more compliance policy, Integration with Office 365 Conditional Access, Endpoint Configuration, Works fine with custom script even when you don't know any scripts, there are plenty of templates.
Lansweeper is grabbing lots of data from the machines without slowing the network and the client machines. We can easily get all the installed software data, hardware and linked hardware and all the user you can grab from the AD (computer and user).
Lansweeper can now scan Windows, Mac and Linux with an agent installed (or not if you want that the server is the one pulling the data).
The web interface is really friendly user and offers lots of possibilities to personalize your dashboard as you see fit.
Reports engine is really powerful and easy to monitor your machines and also your security issues.
We set alerts when a devices gets low on disk space. That is automatic and creates a ticket in ME SDP. We are then able to Add space to a VM Desktop, and then go thru ManageEngine Endpoint Central to extend the drives so the entire process can be done without interruption to the end user.
Using the patch scans we can easily see what patches have been installed for all manufacturers not just Microsoft, without having to physically go to the device. It also allows us to choose which patches we want to push out and automate the process so we can be hands off, freeing up out time for other things.
Remote access to devices. This allows us to remotely make changes, not just via remote control but also make registry changes and clean up space without going to the device and without interruption to the end user.
Alerts. We have set up to get email alerts when new hardware is plugged into any computers. This lets us know if someone is bringing in un-authorized equipment (thumb drives, hubs, etc) to better manage what is/is not on our network.
Their asset comments section is not indexable - if you leave a comment on certain assets you cant search for it - you have to open the asset properties and read the comment
The price could be lower
Sometimes you get false positives where drivers show as unlicensed software
It has been a staple tool for maintaining the environment and as we grow it will be needed more. While trying to configure the system to allow us to access and support systems that are in locations outside of the primary network EndPoint Central will be crucial in facilitating that needed connection.
The tool is a web gui, and is mostly easy to navigate, but certain areas are more unclear than others. Identifying what im filtering for, or what menu option has what impact can be less straightforward than I'd like. Overall though, this tool will provide me with information other tools in my box just don't.
The product is really easy to set up and use. The web interface is relatively easy to use depending on the feature you are trying to use. The search features for inventory for both software and hardware are really good. You might get lost trying to navigate the file managers for endpoints because while the web interface is extremely easy to use, the feature set is very limited
Lansweeper offers a variety of customer support options (including KBs for self-serve and get in touch with them via email), and most importantly, it's a matter of dialing within their allotted supporting time frames. However, I always make sure to provide the following information:
- Screenshots of the issue (if available).
- Program Files (x86)/Lansweeper/Service/Errorlog.txt, as present on your Lansweeper server.
- If it exists, the error log present in Program Files (x86)/Lansweeper/Website/App_Data.
The immediate chat support is great and very helpful. However, if you need escalated support or have a deeper need that the chat tool can't help with, you will experience significant wait times and slow responses. The time zone difference becomes painful to the point of often just giving up.
It seems that the services offered with the purchase change from what is covered to what is an additional cost. Somethings I thought we had ended up requiring an additional purchase if we wanted to continue using the feature.
Lansweeper is DRAMATICALLY cheaper than KACE and provides the same level of reporting and inventory of asset data. Where KACE outshines Lansweeper, is Lansweeper has a very minimal software deployment system that requires clients to have direct access to a common file share. KACE allows you to upload files directly into it's environment, and assets can download over HTTPS those files for installation anywhere. Spiceworks was a great inventory and helpdesk system for free - but the product I feel has gone stale and not nearly as powerful as it use to be - for that reason Lansweeper appears to have taken up the charge and utilized a lot of Spiceworks was going for
We selected Endpoint Central because we couldn't manage our patching with SCCM anymore; we noticed it was inconsistent and not working properly. Also, it wouldn't work out-of-network, which is an important factor for us. These products all helped us improve the quality of our work and efficiency.