Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Azul Zing vs Jamf Connect comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Azul Zing
Ranking in AI Customer Experience Personalization
13th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.2
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Application Infrastructure (12th)
Jamf Connect
Ranking in AI Customer Experience Personalization
64th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
ZTNA as a Service (14th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the AI Customer Experience Personalization category, the mindshare of Azul Zing is 2.0%, down from 30.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Jamf Connect is 0.4%. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
AI Customer Experience Personalization Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Azul Zing2.0%
Jamf Connect0.4%
Other97.6%
AI Customer Experience Personalization
 

Featured Reviews

it_user500349 - PeerSpot reviewer
CTO at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees
It has helped us improve our latency performance drastically
As a large scale high performance trading platform serving the high frequency trading community, latency has always been critical for our clients. Before using Azul Zing JVM, we would have had to spend a lot of effort tuning our JVM GC and profiling our application to minimize latency, which is…
Joost Van 'T Wout - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Endpoint Engineer (macOS/Jamf) at PVH Corp.
Customizable and good password management but needs better user-level profile deployment
The main use case for Jamf Connect was to synchronize local accounts with the identity provider, like Entra. However, due to some limitations with the enrollment sequence and user limitations, we decided to discontinue using it We previously used Jamf Connect to synchronize local accounts with…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which AI Customer Experience Personalization solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
29%
Retailer
16%
Computer Software Company
9%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Insurance Company
7%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise9
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Jamf Connect?
Jamf Connect requires a per-device license fee, which becomes quite expensive given our large company size. Each device that gets enrolled with Jamf Connect requires a monthly license payment.
What needs improvement with Jamf Connect?
There is room for improvement with Jamf Connect in reducing its cost and overcoming limitations during pre-stage enrollment, which prevent it from creating MDM-capable users. This limitation affect...
What is your primary use case for Jamf Connect?
The main use case for Jamf Connect was to synchronize local accounts with the identity provider, like Entra. However, due to some limitations with the enrollment sequence and user limitations, we d...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Wandera, Wandera Private Access
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Priceline, RBS, Credit Suisse, ING, Creditex, Nielsen, Workday, Saks Fifth Avenue, Entergy, Quotix, Puma and many more.  Visit azul.com for more.
Mastercard, Deloitte, PayPal, Toshiba, BNP Paribas, EY, Otis, Rollins, Eurostar, Frontier, Sealy, Rolex, VITAS Healthcare
Find out what your peers are saying about Azul Zing vs. Jamf Connect and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.