ManageEngine Remote Access Plus vs. mRemoteNG

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

mRemote is well suited if you need to manage multiple types of servers and/or network devices. Instead of opening a dedicated Putty session and having to manage all of the windows, mRemote can handle all of this with different tabs. If you only have a few devices (less than 10), mRemote could be overwhelming for the need and not quite match up with what you are needing.

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

• Tabbed Views. Each server remote desktop is viewed in its own separate tab, similar to a web browser. This makes it much quicker and easier to switch between them than using separate windows.
• Storing credentials. You can configure it with log on credentials for each system, saving time on accessing as you don't need to enter a password each time.
• Multiple connection types. I use the traditional RDP the most, but mRemoteNG allows many different connection types, similar to Putty.

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

• Sadly not seeing much in the way of active development these days.
• Have had a few issues where the config file has been messed up (so learnging to back that up was key).
• Interface is functional but not pretty and can be a bit clunky at times.

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 very easy to setup and use. The tree structure organizes the multiple connections in a hierarchical manner which makes it easy to browse and the tabbed browsing make it simple to switch between multiple ongoing connections You can even export the list of connections and import it to another setup.

Incentivized

Never actually needed to use support so have no idea - honestly it's simple enough to use I'd be surprised if anyone really needs support with it.

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

mRemoteNG is far more useful than LogMeIn when on the same network, or VPN as the servers, as it allows multiple server screens open in multiple tabs. LogMeIn is much more useful when working out of the office for its ability to connect anywhere, but each system accessed is in a separate window making navigation a little tricky. Sometimes I use them in tandem however, LogMeIn to access a machine in my network, then mRemoteNG to access multiple machines from there!

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Very easy to hand over connections to new starters.
• Having multiple remote protocols in one place is a massive time saver.

Incentivized