Microsoft System Center vs. Perforce Puppet

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
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
Perforce Puppet
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
Puppet Enteprise is an IT automation and configuration management solution that enables users to manage and automate infrastructure and complex workflows. The vendor states Puppet Enterprise combines both model‑based and task-based capabilities in a way that enables organizations to scale their multi-cloud infrastructure as their automation footprint grows, with more flexibility from both agent-based and agentless capabilities.N/A
Pricing
Microsoft System CenterPerforce Puppet
Editions & Modules
Standard Edition
$1323
Datacenter Edition
$3607
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Microsoft System CenterPerforce Puppet
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Microsoft System CenterPerforce Puppet
Considered Both Products
Microsoft System Center
Chose Microsoft System Center
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 …
Chose Microsoft System Center
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 …
Chose Microsoft System Center
It has more intuitive features and business ready monitoring capabilities
Chose Microsoft System Center
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 …
Chose Microsoft System Center
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.
Chose Microsoft System Center
Veeam Backup & Replication
Chose Microsoft System Center
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 …
Chose Microsoft System Center
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.
Chose Microsoft System Center
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.
Chose Microsoft System Center
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 …
Chose Microsoft System Center
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 …
Chose Microsoft System Center
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 …
Chose Microsoft System Center
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.
Chose Microsoft System Center
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.
Chose Microsoft System Center
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
Chose Microsoft System Center
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 …
Chose Microsoft System Center
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, …
Chose Microsoft System Center
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.
Chose Microsoft System Center
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 …
Chose Microsoft System Center
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.
Chose Microsoft System Center
It is used to monitor network device health status, similar to SCOM. Microsoft SCOM is far superior, however.
Chose Microsoft System Center
This is our first solution and we have been using it for many years.
Chose Microsoft System Center
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 …
Perforce Puppet
Chose Perforce Puppet
As I mentioned before Ansible is a great tool. There is no question about it. It has very simple syntax (YAML), is very easy to learn, and is scalable as well. But the only thing that ansible lacked at that time was the actual agent that have to go into each server. Ansible …
Chose Perforce Puppet
[Both] products are comparable. There is a good open source community for each, but we found Puppet to be the most mature for our specific use case.
Chose Perforce Puppet
Puppet was selected before I joined the team, had it been my choice I would have much rather went with Chef as it has the ability to do things that Puppet has not yet added to their system such a the ability to quickly query what host currently are allowing puppet to maintain …
Chose Perforce Puppet
I have not used any other Configuration Management System since cfengine back in about 2007 so I have little current input on alternatives to Puppet having never used them, though Chef seems to have gained some traction as has Ansible.
Chose Perforce Puppet
We have used SaltStack by proxy of utilizing Ceph since it uses SaltStack to automate configuration changes to it's cluster. I found it easy to use however extremely limiting when it comes to scale as its not a proper language with a central data store like Hiera. We plan to …
Chose Perforce Puppet
Puppet was the first software for data center automation that we incorporated in our infrastructure and we were pleased enough to keep going with it.
Chose Perforce Puppet
HPSA is a licensed product and incurs significant upfront investment costs due to COTS licensing. Puppet Data Center Automation has a significantly lower upfront investment and product documentation is more readily available. Chef is a very similar offering, however, at the …
Chose Perforce Puppet
I was put on a team that initially adopted Puppet. However from what I see, it fits and makes sense.
Chose Perforce Puppet
We evaluated Chef and Ansible. Puppet Data Center Automation was cleaner and we were more familiar with the product.
Chose Perforce Puppet
Puppet has a very wide user base with many organizations tht support it as well as conferences and events. Puppet DSL is based in Ruby while the server is now in Clojure providing ease of configuration with the power of scale. Puppet is a great entry point into the world of …
Best Alternatives
Microsoft System CenterPerforce Puppet
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

IBM Terraform
IBM Terraform
Score 8.8 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies

No answers on this topic

Ansible
Ansible
Score 9.1 out of 10
Enterprises

No answers on this topic

Ansible
Ansible
Score 9.1 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Microsoft System CenterPerforce Puppet
Likelihood to Recommend
9.3
(0 ratings)
7.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
7.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.4
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
8.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Microsoft System CenterPerforce Puppet
Likelihood to Recommend
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.
Read full review
Most of the major issues that people had with the language have been addressed in Puppet 4 which primarily pertain to the limitations of the language and its ability to scale. It would be nice to allow for full ruby support as an unsupported option though so developers are able to reference their own data sources dynamically.
Read full review
Pros
  • Allows us to visualize our systems in a single interface and see the status of health as well as relevant performance metrics.
  • A flexible and powerful interface with active alerting covering domain controllers, SQL servers, etc...
  • Allows you to customize your views and workspaces for specific tasks and needs.
  • Reporting is powerful and flexible.
Read full review
  • Provides a reliable mechanism for deploying infrastructure-as-code, especially when integrated with source control (such as Git).
  • Manages system configuration drift to provide greater stability and system up-time; the same configuration-as-code can be pushed out over and over.
  • A strong asset when moving teams towards DevOps by providing development a way to take control of their own assets.
Read full review
Cons
  • 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.
Read full review
  • Steep learning curve for first time users.
  • The complexity can get a little overwhelming in a more collaborative deployment methodology across multiple platforms and data centers.
  • Some external changes to Puppet like the new Puppet 4 architecture can cause considerable time consuming migration efforts especially if you have a lot of legacy classes and configuration that do not conform readily to the new design.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Microsoft System Center Operations Manager is tightly integrated to Microsoft Windows servers os monitoring with great product support.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
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.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
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.
Read full review
Puppet has top class support. You can simply mail them with their query and they will respond to your query in a timely manner. We do have enterprise license for puppet. Also there is a vibrant community for puppet out there. So even if you dont purchase a premium support option you can simply google your queries and get answers
Read full review
Implementation Rating
Easy to install with intuitive interactive interface during the installation process a and integration to MS SQL was smooth
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
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.
Read full review
Puppet was selected before I joined the team, had it been my choice I would have much rather went with Chef as it has the ability to do things that Puppet has not yet added to their system such a the ability to quickly query what host currently are allowing puppet to maintain their files or the ability to run remote commands without having to include it in a manifest like Chef does with the knife command. Salt allows you to do similar things to the knife command that is included with Chef, and also allows you to transfer files quickly to multiple host at once with a short simple command.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • 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.
Read full review
  • With all the DevOps and automation that we have going on, we save a ton of time on the configuration of the server. It's safe to say that configuring servers via console or via UI is a thing of the past.
  • We try to get all the things done by using a centralized repo (GitHub). Puppet is one tool that actually gets the actual work done.
  • The small amount that we spent on purchasing premium Puppet is completely justified because of the time and effort that this tool actually helps us save.
Read full review
ScreenShots