Desktop Central from ManageEngine is a client desktop management with patching, remote control, and configuration.
N/A
Microsoft System Center
Score 8.3 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft System Center is an enterprise-grade IT Operations Management (ITOM) suite designed for the centralized administration of data center infrastructure, virtualized environments, and hybrid cloud workloads. The platform provides unified management across heterogeneous environments, including support for Windows Server, Linux, and Azure Stack HCI.
System Center is Microsoft's ITOM stack for organizations that maintain a significant on-premise footprint, vs the company's Azure-based…
$1,323
Pricing
ManageEngine Endpoint Central
Microsoft System Center
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Standard Edition
$1323
Datacenter Edition
$3607
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
ManageEngine Endpoint Central
Microsoft System Center
Free Trial
Yes
No
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
ManageEngine Endpoint Central
Microsoft System Center
Considered Both Products
ManageEngine Endpoint Central
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose ManageEngine Endpoint Central
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 …
SCCM is often considered superior to Intune because it is more predictable and transparent in day-to-day operations. Errors in SCCM are clearer and easier to troubleshoot, whereas Intune issues can feel vague and harder to diagnose. SCCM also offers rich, built-in features such …
Microsoft System Center really integrated with our windows system better than any other 3rd party product which obviously you would expect to a certain extent. Our main reason to procuring System Center (apart form the options)was licensing costs. We already had a Microsoft …
None. We are a Microsoft business, and this is THE tool for imaging, packaging, remote support, and antivirus management. Microsoft's tool is the best for managing its software, systems, and antivirus clients. I will say that Microsoft Intune, the cloud platform, can be used …
The capability of SCOM as far as monitoring Windows systems is concerned is far greater than any monitoring product out there as both are a Microsoft product so integration and discoveries work well and fast.
The versatility of the suite of application provided by the Microsoft experience center was way above the other competitors , it helped gained leverage over the other products in the market . That why we made the decision of choosing Microsoft system center as a infrastructure …
We use Azure, we have lisences, so we have no needs any other cost. And also, we want to save backup data in Azure. Veritas ask additional cost reagurally and have to rebuild bakcup environment.
Because Datadog was too small, we decided quickly to use Microsoft System Center. We use a lot of other Microsoft products so that discussion was quickly set internally.
We have used Ghost from Symantec (licensed), FOG and Clonezilla which are freeware products. All three products had their pros and cons. The two freeware products were functional but did lack some polish, and Ghost was a good product for imaging of desktop computers. All did …
We previously used a mix of FOG and Clonezilla to image machines. The biggest issues with these products is that changing one piece of the image required you to rebuild the entire image itself. These pieces of software also did not allow you to manage applications and Windows …
We are using Microsoft products for a long time, so the overall confidence played a part in the decision, the feature set and licensing cost was also very high when compared with above products, so we decided to use System Center for our environment, so far it has solved many …
We selected it simply because it is less expensive than the competition, but yet just as good. We saw no reason to go outside the walls of Microsoft for this task. We are satisfied with the product.
This was used to monitor uor non-Windows systems and was cumbersome. Their licensing was per device with how many agents you needed; however, with System Center Operations Manager, their billing was a lot easier for their product.
All comparative features are way expensive and complex to configure in all other competitors. Value to money and ease of deployment for Microsoft based environment
Microsoft System Center has more options. Microsoft System Center has the ability to image PCs as well as remotely connect to PCs, and software installation and patching where Symantec Ghost Solution Suite didn't handle all of these options as well. We haven't looked at many …
Much better UI for system center. Also, Tivoli was discontinued, so it was an easy decision. Altiris was acquired by Symantec but was unreliable and painful. It's UI was unresponsive and generally outdated. It wouldn't clean up old packages and would hog GB of disk space, …
SCOM is better than OMi for Windows-based servers monitoring. You need to know how to use Visual Studio to customize the management pack. Dynatrace is way better for all Application Performance Manager.
It has its similarities between the two from a ticketing standpoint but as a primarily Microsoft shop it is nice to have a product that was created to play along with other tools that we are using such as SCCM. We like Jira for the project management tools and Cherwell for …
It is an excellent product for monitoring features like Exchange, Active Directory, DNS. Monitors are custom designed and can be adjusted to any system. Great monitors can be created even when monitoring open-source systems.
How SCEP stacks up against some of the other AV solutions/products is that it does a pretty good job overall (not the best in the industry) at detecting/removing malware, which is the main focus for a product like this. It is also easy to use on the end-user side, which can't …
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.
We used a product before that was designed to prevent users making changes and saving files to the desktop computer. This required a renewal of the license. By using SCCM in our environment we were able to discontinue using that product because SCCM allows us to completely restore a machine back to the original configuration. We have taught our users to save their individual work on either a network drive or a cloud drive. By doing this, if we do a re-image of their machine they have lost no data, and it makes for a faster resolution. In some instances having a computer in our SCCM environment it can become cumbersome when creating new users for very specific purposes. It can be done by creating new organizational units and applying new policies but when in a pinch it can be frustrating. For the most part we have tried to make "new" purpose images and groups to at least accommodate a quick install.
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.
One of the biggest drawbacks to SCOM is the sheer scope and complexity of the system. This can be a pro and a con. The system is very customizable, what you put into it is what you'll get out of it. That said, the learning curve is fairly steep. An organization needs to be committed to putting time and resources into SCOM to get the most out of it. I've heard stories from colleagues of several different companies that invested in SCOM and then abandoned it due to the excessive time and care required.
SCOM is expensive. Not only is the enterprise licensing costly, SCOM requires it's own servers, operational and warehouse databases to be maintained.
The OOB SCOM reports are a bit clunky and feel outdated.
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 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
It is not user-friendly for the most part. With IT infrastructure, sometimes it cannot handle excess requests. Every few months, you will need an upgrade in terms of server resources to keep up with incoming alerts and requests. This does not happen all of the time, but it does happen when there are too many requests.
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.
There is a fair amount of documentation out there to help you when you have questions or run into issues with this product as well as tutorials on some of the more common tasks. Between the documentation and the overall ease of use we haven't had to deal with direct Microsoft support for this product.
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.
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.
None. We are a Microsoft business, and this is THE tool for imaging, packaging, remote support, and antivirus management. Microsoft's tool is the best for managing its software, systems, and antivirus clients. I will say that Microsoft Intune, the cloud platform, can be used for those with heavy 365 usage, but for us, that does not meet our current company needs.
The positive impact it has had on ROI is that it has been a solid AV product in our environment, meaning it has worked well when running on client computers. It doesn't use a lot of system resources on the client-side, so that helps end-users productivity of not being slowed down.
It has been good for the end-user, since they really don't need to take additional training or consult user manuals, in how to use the product.
