I am using Microsoft System Center. I use Microsoft System Center for patch deployment and application deployment.
Microsoft System Center offers comprehensive management of IT environments, integrating seamlessly with Microsoft platforms. It supports automated updates, antivirus management, and endpoint monitoring, delivering insights and managing applications efficiently.



| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| Microsoft System Center | 2.5% |
| Apache Web Server | 8.0% |
| NGINX Plus | 7.9% |
| Other | 81.6% |
| Type | Title | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Application Infrastructure | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Product | Reviews, tips, and advice from real users | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | Microsoft System Center vs IIS | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | Microsoft System Center vs Microsoft .NET Framework | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | Microsoft System Center vs NGINX Plus | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Title | Rating | Mindshare | Recommending | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Datadog | 4.3 | N/A | 97% | 211 interviewsAdd to research |
| Zabbix | 4.2 | N/A | 95% | 109 interviewsAdd to research |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 6 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 4 |
| Large Enterprise | 8 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 46 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 31 |
| Large Enterprise | 32 |
Microsoft System Center stands out as a robust IT management solution, delivering efficient performance monitoring, seamless integration with Microsoft environments, and effortless configuration. Users benefit from automated updates, endpoint and antivirus management, and precise reporting capabilities, ensuring full visibility of applications and hardware. With features like PXE deployment and Virtual Machine Manager automation, coupled with an intuitive interface, it enhances operational efficiency in managing deployments and updates. Yet, areas such as integration with non-Microsoft products, resource demands, and mobile app support present challenges needing improvement, alongside complexities in multi-tenant environments.
What are the most important features of Microsoft System Center?In industries like retail and government, Microsoft System Center plays a critical role in monitoring server functionality, performance, and application management. It aids infrastructure management, facilitates device deployments, and enhances cybersecurity with endpoint protection. Organizations use it for collecting inventory data, generating insightful reports, and supporting help desks through efficient ticketing, alongside centralized antivirus oversight.
Microsoft System Center was previously known as MS System Center.
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Sr. Sys. Server & Storage Egineer / Tech .Consultant at CANAR OFFICE SYSTEMS | 4.5 | I've used Microsoft System Center for five years for patch and application deployment; it's feature-rich and integrates well, though complex to install. It's stable and scalable, but support and service dependencies can be challenging. |
| Cloud Security Engineer at Punch Powertrain nv | 4.5 | I use Microsoft System Center for managing applications and upgrades in my company, finding its management features valuable. However, improvements are needed in its UI and third-party integration. It achieves cost savings by automating application management previously outsourced. |
| Engineer Specialist at Telekom Slovenije | 4.0 | We use Microsoft System Center to maintain desktops and laptops. It's well integrated into the Microsoft environment and enhances our remote support capabilities, providing over 50% ROI. However, performance, UI speed, and AI features need improvement. |
| ESM Product Manager at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees | 2.5 | We use Microsoft System Center primarily for infrastructure monitoring, appreciating its Operations Manager. However, it needs improvements in the user interface, ease of use, and cloud-monitoring capabilities, especially for AWS and Azure infrastructure, to stay current with industry standards. |
| IT Lead at 0 | 4.5 | We use Microsoft System Center primarily for managing Windows updates and deployments on servers and desktops. Although it has valuable features like license tracking and software deployment, it's complex to manage and deploy compared to cloud-based solutions like Automox. |
| Director at Ingenia | 4.0 | I use Microsoft System Center for business intelligence data management due to its ease of use with pre-installed services. However, creating dataflows can be challenging, requiring SQL steps for simplification. Improvement in dataflow creation is needed. |
| System Engineer at Gulf | 4.0 | At my previous job in a bank's IT department, we needed a solution to monitor servers and hardware infrastructure, including CPU usage and activities. Microsoft System Center's GUI was valuable, but its pricing could be improved. |
| Infrastructure and Cybersecurity Analyst at Daiichi Sankyo Brasil Ltda | 5.0 | We use Microsoft System Center to manage patches, antivirus distribution, and application compatibility within our environments. It effectively integrates with Intune for remote users. We haven't found significant areas for improvement and have noticed time savings as ROI. |
| Network Engineer at a educational organization with 201-500 employees | 4.5 | I utilize this solution for desktop and server security, critical updates, and endpoint protection, valuing its automation and reliability. My primary concern is the significantly outdated documentation. Despite this, I consider it a strong and stable solution for our needs. |
| Infrastructure Architect at a government with 10,001+ employees | 2.0 | I've used Microsoft System Center for client management for 10 years. It's stable and available, but multi-tenancy and scalability are poor. I recommend it but only rate it 4/10. |

I am using Microsoft System Center. I use Microsoft System Center for patch deployment and application deployment.
The advantages of Microsoft System Center are significant, and I have seen other products as well. As far as advantages are concerned, they have PXE deployment, which is good for deploying operating systems, such as Windows client systems including Windows 10 and Windows 11.
Since it is a Microsoft product, all the patches are proprietary, making it easier to deploy. In Microsoft System Center, all the features are integrated already, whereas in ManageEngine, you have to license each feature individually to access those features.
The automated features of Virtual Machine Manager are very useful; it automates as long as the policy that I have created is in line with the objective, especially the templates when I'm going to deploy.
Regarding endpoint management, Microsoft System Center is very helpful; it has integrated endpoint protection deployment, allowing me to handle endpoint configuration, system deployment, and patch deployment, making it an all-in-one stop shop for managing and configuring end clients.
The impact of using Microsoft System Center is significant; it gives me a whole picture of my environment, making it easy to get inventory details regarding applications and hardware, providing full visibility of my setup within the organization.
The disadvantage of Microsoft System Center is related to the many integrated services; if one service is failing, then all features will be affected. For example, with site configuration, when one is down, then all of the services become unusable.
I have been working with this product for around five years.
Installing Microsoft System Center is complex; you need to have very good experience to be able to install it. Most of the time, Microsoft sends additional new packages and services, and even when integrating SQL, problems can occur. They will eventually release another build to resolve these issues, so having a good concept is essential.
After having the installation completed, Microsoft System Center is stable now based on feedback from my end users.
Microsoft System Center is scalable, allowing integration even if I have different sites.
The technical support from Microsoft is regionally managed; however, since I am based in Saudi Arabia, when I'm creating support requests through phone, they don't provide an option for English, which is a problem.
As a partner, I cannot create a ticket directly; I have to involve the end user's email to create one, so using the Software Assurance ID to create a ticket directly is not possible, making it very challenging for me.
Currently, I rate the technical support from Microsoft as a six, placing it in the middle.
Neutral
It takes around eight months to achieve ROI with Microsoft System Center.
The pricing of Microsoft System Center is higher than ManageEngine, which is less because that is on a per-module, per-feature basis. I haven't looked at the complete picture comparing Microsoft System Center to ManageEngine as a total package. However, considering everything is included in Microsoft, from that perspective, it is cost-effective enough compared to a single license per feature.
The connection is not very stable. I rate Microsoft System Center a nine out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for publishing the applications, pushing the upgrades, and pushing Microsoft-based security upgrades and patches, including software patches but excluding third-party patches. My company manages Microsoft System Center cost center-wise, so we deploy software tools based on cost center and teams so that people get software products directly with just one click on their system.
The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it helps us manage our company's application pool, license pool, application update pool, and OS updates.
For me, the tool's UI seems to be too old. The product's UI needs improvement. The integration features and smoothness of the tool can be improved.
Integration can be improved. Maybe Microsoft can lower the costs of third-party application upgrades.
Integration of Microsoft System Center with third-party tools is difficult. You need to wander around a lot and explore a lot. The integration capabilities of Microsoft System Center need to be made smoother or easier with a few playbooks.
I have been using Microsoft System Center for more than two years. I use the solution's latest version.
The tool's stability is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
The product's initial setup phase is not that difficult. It can be a little complex for beginners, but for me, it is of medium-level difficulty.
For the product's deployment phase, you should know your endpoints. All the endpoints should be onboarded. You should know your application pool, and you can then customize security and cumulative updates accordingly with the tool.
The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.
The solution can be deployed in three months.
The installation was managed by an in-house team in our company.
In terms of ROI, the product saves a lot of money. Earlier, Mm company used to give a third party to manage certain areas, which are now managed by our organization's in-house team members after Microsoft System Center was introduced in our environment. All our application pools and upgrades are automated with the help of Microsoft System Center.
There is a need to make yearly payments towards the licensing charges attached to the product. I rate the product price as five to six on a scale of one to ten, where one means it is cheap and ten means it is expensive. It is a fairly priced product. There is no need to pay any additional charges apart from the standard licensing charges associated with the solution.
Speaking about the impact of the automation feature that impacted our company's operational efficiency, I can say that the complete tool works on automation. You just have to configure it, and it works, especially in areas like auto-patching updates.
I suggest that others can definitely go ahead with Microsoft System Center, especially beginners who choose it, can get hands-on experience with it, and acquire a good understanding of how things work.
In terms of the value and benefits derived from the use of the solution, I can say that my company's operations have been made simpler because of the product, especially in areas like user management and application management where we have been benefited a lot.
I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We use the product to maintain desktops and laptops.
The product is very well integrated into the Microsoft environment.
The platform's performance could be improved. Additionally, its UI needs to be well-upgraded and work faster. AI features could be included as well.
We have been partners with Microsoft System Center for more than ten years.
I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten.
The platform is scalable enough for the environment we are covering. We support multiple clients and manage around 10,000 to 20,000 systems for them; thus, it is quite a large environment.
The technical support services need a lot of improvement. We can solve most of the cases ourselves. Whenever we raise the ticket, they take a few days or even weeks to resolve the issues. It is very time-consuming.
Neutral
The installation process is easy, but the configuration is quite complex. It involves setting up many components to use most of the features. It requires one engineer to work on the implementation. The time taken depends on the environment. It takes about a day to complete. Once everything is set up, it is easy to maintain.
Microsoft System Center allows us to provide support services to clients remotely. Thus, we can work faster, which is great. It generates more than 50% of return on investment for us.
Microsoft System Center is quite expensive. They offer yearly basis licenses. Our customers have to purchase only the licenses, whereas our company needs to get an extra support contract.
Microsoft System Center is a nice tool. Before purchasing, you must get some training on using a few advanced features. Otherwise, it is challenging to use and a waste of money if used for only a few basic tasks.
I rate it an eight out of ten.
System Center hasn't updated to keep up with the industry. It needs improvements in the user interface, ease of use, and overall product functionality, particularly the cloud-monitoring features. It needs more capabilities to monitor AWS and Azure infrastructure.
We started using Microsoft System Center before they changed the name, so it has been more than 15 years. It was previously called Systems Management Server.
I rate System Center nine out of 10 for scalability. It covers 65,000 servers at my company, so it's pretty scalable.
I rate Microsoft support four out of 10.
Neutral
Setting up System Center is relatively straightforward.
I rate System Center seven out of 10 for affordability.
I rate Microsoft System Center five out of 10. Microsoft needs to add more tools and features to keep the product relevant to all IT platforms. It lacks cloud monitoring.
We use the tool to manage the updates.
The tool has many valuable features, including license tracking, software deployment, and installation deployment. However, we primarily use it for Windows updates and deployment for Windows servers and desktops. It's a complex product but very well-managed. If you use all the features, they will be valuable to your organization. It allows you to deploy desktops, manage patches, and track various features.
Microsoft System Center should be easier to manage. However, it is complex to deploy, so people hesitate to use it. Though it has many features, such as licensing, asset tracking, and software deployment, we mainly use it for Windows updates. It protects many screens and integrates with databases, but it's complex compared to other solutions. Many now use cloud-based products or other tools like Automox to deploy updates and manage vulnerabilities.
I have been using the product for one year.
Microsoft System Center's scalability is good.
I have never used the tool's support. Microsoft support is costly.
There is a default Windows feature called Windows Server Update Services used for deploying OS and other updates.
Microsoft System Center's deployment is complex compared to other products.
Microsoft System Center's licensing is costly.
Microsoft System Center is a good solution, but it requires knowledgeable resources. I rate it a nine out of ten.

I use the solution in my company to deal with the same use cases that we use Talend Open Studio for since we have to deal with data for business intelligence.
The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is easy to use since the server comes with services installed in it, making it easy for my company.
In Microsoft System Center, it is difficult to follow the steps to create dataflows at times. Our company has to use certain steps with SQL to deal with the dataflow area, making it an easy process. The product's ability to deal with the creation of dataflows should be improved.
I have six years of experience with Microsoft System Center.
I had no issues with the stability of the product.
It is a scalable solution. I rate the scalability of the product an eight out of ten.
Around five people in my company use the product.
As only a team of five people, consisting of developers, in my company uses the product to implement the dataflows, we don't plan to increase the users of the solution.
The product's initial setup phase was easy.
The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.
The solution can be deployed in a day or two.
I know that sometimes there is some reduction in the prices of Microsoft System Center because of the costs of Microsoft SQL Server, which can be advantageous.
Microsoft System Center doesn't help streamline our company's data center management since our organization only deals with customers who have deployed the tool in their environment on an on-premises model. The management area of the tool is more difficult since the product is not available on the cloud or does not have a management console, like Talend.
Speaking about the use cases involving the product's hybrid cloud management, I would say that Microsoft System Center is mostly used by project managers who don't directly use dataflows but need to check whether it is correct. A management console is important in the product.
The feature of the tool with the largest impact on our company's IT efficiency stems from our use of SQL Server Integration Services and not from SQL Server Reporting Services.
I can recommend the solution to those who use SQL Server.
The benefit that I have seen from the use of the solution in our company stems from the fact that it is simple for me to implement with SQL Server, but I have no preferences in particular.
I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

In my previous work, they wanted to monitor all the servers in the banking systems. I used to be in the IT department of the bank, and they wanted to monitor the servers and the whole hardware infrastructure. They did a tech refresh, migrated some systems, and wanted to upgrade the whole server. So, we had to find a solution that would monitor the whole server when it comes to space, CPU usage, and activities.
The most valuable feature of Microsoft System Center is its GUI (graphical user interface).
The solution’s pricing could be improved.
I have been using Microsoft System Center since 2018.
I rate Microsoft System Center an eight out of ten for stability.
The solution’s customer support is good.
Positive
The solution's initial setup depends on the intelligence and experience of the person doing it.
I rate Microsoft System Center a five out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.
On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten.
Overall, I rate Microsoft System Center an eight out of ten.
We primarily use the solution to:
• Maintain the patch and antivirus distribution environment for all our users;
• Generate reports that prove the distribution and installation of Patches and antivirus according to vulnerabilities/needs;
• Bank of weekly hours to perform punctual work related to Patch Management and antivirus and preparation of application packages for distribution to users;
• Ensure that patches and applications are compatible with our controlled environments, preparing an environment for validation testing before application in production (if necessary);
• Maintain and prepare the distribution of applications through SCCM;
• Manage, and create the Distribution of Windows Group Police to customers with the needs demanded;
• Have meetings with the requesting areas and with the IT teams involved;
• Handle effective antivirus administration, weekly reports, and Windows Defender update monitoring.
Microsoft System Center has brought us greater control to fix known vulnerabilities by deploying instantly throughout our workstation park. It is only necessary to be extremely careful that no configuration is replicated that could negatively affect the entire workstation park.
Microsoft System Center can be a huge ally in the IT park, where we can orchestrate many tasks automatically. Another interesting point is that we can upload images on our workstations quickly in a very short time. In summary, it is an excellent tool as long as it is administered correctly.
The most important aspects of the solution includes:
When the patch is not installed automatically, SCCM needs to identify that the patch has not been updated and automatically opens calls to the local field.
At the moment, we don't miss any resources since we work together with Intune and it has helped us a lot.
Something super important that we need is this integration via Intune Configuration Manager. This will make it much easier for remote users who almost never go to the office.
One point to take into consideration is to have your configuration done well. Unfortunately, we lack professionals with these skills and this makes it a little difficult for companies.
I can say that, in general, we do not have many points to review in the tool.
I've used the solution for four years.
The stability is excellent.
We never need to fire Microsoft for support. Regarding day-to-day support, this depends on the contracted consultancy.
Positive
We did not previously use a different solution.
The initial configuration is not very complex when you have the knowledge.
We did the implementation by a supplier, however, they could have had better technical knowledge.
We've witnessed ROI in that it will save a team time.
I'd advise others to seek a specialized consultancy and request references. This will greatly change your perception of this tool.
We use it for desktop and server security and critical updates, and for imaging Windows client machines, which would be Windows 10. That's our primary usage for that. We generate reports from it, showing the status of our infrastructure, our device infrastructure, I should say, for clients.
One of the big uses is also for endpoint protection updates. We use endpoint protection for anti-virus and anti-malware and that's all managed centrally.
We run security updates for endpoint protection daily. Any zero day threats that arise we're covered for those, assuming Microsoft has recognized there was an issue to patch for them. Generally, it's no more than 24 hours after something becomes available that we will have it deployed.
I like the automated features of it that let you schedule those updates and the ability of the product to focus on the specific updates, specific platforms, and products that we're interested in keeping up to date.
They could definitely update some of the documentation associated with the product. We have a couple of issues with syncing with the Microsoft updates on servers. We don't completely understand what's happening. It's a little bit hard to get a handle on it, doing the research on our own.
Most of the documentation is online, however, there are some gaps there. The product documentation still refers back to the 2012 Server. We're pretty much in 2022. There's a ten-year gap there.
I work in a K-12 educational environment. Over the last 18 to 24 months, we've been back and forth between everybody being offsite, with the ability to manage devices over the public internet. A lot of times, particularly in this timeframe, student devices, teachers' devices have not been on site. Yet, we still need to ensure that those are being updated and protected. This may have already been considered in the mobile platform, however, it's something to consider here.
I've been using the solution for seven years.
The stability has been very reliable. We run a virtualized instance of the 2012 server that we have it deployed on, as that's what the documentation describes. In the course of seven years, we've only had to recover it once or twice when an update has gone sideways. We've always been able to do that. We've been pretty comfortable with it. We're careful about that.
If we're doing an update, we'll close the system before we do an update, and definitely do a backup of it and test immediately after the update. We can see if there are any issues and then roll back if necessary, until Microsoft fixes whatever part of the update that might have broken.
We're a fairly small organization. We only have a few thousand endpoints. That said, my understanding of it is that it has pretty massive scalability. The number of users that interact with it is just a handful. They are the admins and our IT department.
It's operating 24 hours a day and it's got a critical role doing those security updates. I would say it's used extensively.
It's been pretty rare that we would reach out to Microsoft. We're an enterprise customer, however, we don't pay for support for products. We can get support in a pinch, but typically what we found with them is that there's a pretty hefty charge to do that, over and above what we pay for the subscription services. We typically rely on the community around the product and on peers that also use the product.
Prior to my arrival, the company was using Ghost and Windows Deployment Services, WDS, however, WDS was subsumed into System Center and Ghost just no longer really served our needs.
I didn't do the initial setup myself, however, I was working for the same organization when it was set up.
During the setup, we wound up reaching out to a lot of peers for their experience and what they ran into in setting it up and getting it configured properly. We chose that route since we work in education K-12 and there's quite a community around that. We had pretty good success with that. We did not go out specifically and sign up for training for it.
That said, the documentation hasn't changed much since it was initially set up with the availability of documentation.
It took us a few weeks to set it up, configure it, make it ready to run, and verify that it was functionally performing the way we thought it should.
I wouldn't say that it's maintenance-heavy. It was largely one person doing the setup with some assistance from myself. Now we have one technician typically looking at the reports on a daily basis. They check for anything that we need to be aware of, or that comes up, and also work with our system admin for updating images if we're updating images for new Windows devices. It's not really maintenance-heavy in our instance.
We handled the implementation in-house, however, we did ask for advice from our peers.
It's rolled into our enterprise subscription. The entire subscription is around $25,000 a year, however, that covers all the products that we use.
We're pretty much right up to date with the product. We may be one recent update behind, however, we're not far behind with it. We keep it up-to-date for safety and bug-prevention reasons.
I would advise training would be a big plus for anybody that's going to deploy this at any sizeable scale. There's an awful lot to the product, and even over and above what we use now, there are additions. People can use it in a mobile sense, more of a mobile platform that's cloud-oriented. With so many pieces, training would be well worth it.
I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. The documentation could be updated, however, it's overall a strong solution.
Microsoft System Center is a suite of products with different products within it. We have experience using all of them. We primarily use the solution for client management.
The solution is easily available. That's its most valuable aspect.
The multi-tenancy support needs to be improved. We need to have the ability to manage several different environments from one central point of administration.
We've been using this solution for ten years.
The solution is stable. We haven't had issues. It doesn't crash or freeze and there aren't bugs or glitches. It's reliable.
I wouldn't describe the solution as scalable. That's not necessarily why you would use it.
We manage about 15,000 clients with this product currently.
We do not plan to increase usage in the future.
We have a support agreement with Microsoft. So far, we've been satisfied with the level of support we've received. They are responsive and knowledgeable and they do help when we require their assistance.
We did use a different solution, however, it was so long ago, I don't recall the name. It's been ten years. The switch of technology made us originally switch solutions.
The initial setup was not complex at all. It was pretty straightforward, from what I recall.
I'm not sure how long deployment took our team as I was not directly involved in the process. I'm not sure what our implementation strategy was or how it was executed.
We have about 10-15 staff members that handle deployment and maintenance.
We handled the deployment internally. We did not use a consultant, reseller, or integrator to assist us.
We're using the latest version of the solution.
We have a business relationship with Microsoft. However, we are only a customer.
I'd recommend this solution to other companies. It's been quite good to us overall.
I'd rate the solution four out of ten.