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 …
We replaced LANDESK with Endpoint Central. When comparing the two, Endpoint Central is the clear winner in every single category you can think of. LANDESK was incredibly tedious to use, and it was far less powerful than Endpoint Central. We are very happy with the wide array of …
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 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.
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
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.
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.