We performed a comparison between Bigfix and Microsoft Windows Server Update Services based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: BigFix wins out in this comparison. The main difference between the two solutions is that Microsoft Windows Server Update Services users say deployment is complicated and that the product could benefit from better reporting.
"It's easy to use, not complicated."
"BigFix helped us to identify the compliance of devices and has also improved the way that we manage our software inventory for reporting to vendors."
"The most valuable and essential features of BigFix are all of them, they are needed when serving the purpose of the desktop operation framework. We cannot run operations without patching or without having an appropriate mechanism for deploying software, et cetera. The features all serve their purpose for our use case."
"The best feature of BigFix is its multi-platform support."
"The technical support for BigFix is really amazing."
"One of the biggest benefits BigFix has had for our organization is the ease and efficiency to perform many different tasks, across pillars and platforms, all from one pane of glass."
"It enables us to patch our systems quickly and within expectations and to increase our volume as needed. It has also helped us compress our patch sites. We used to do it monthly but now we do it weekly."
"From a security standpoint, it allows us to make sure that we're not leaving ourselves vulnerable to exploits and things like that. That's the biggest advantage that we see to the product from a security standpoint."
"Compared to Linux, Windows Server’s setup is easier."
"Provides the ability to create multiple downstream servers."
"With WSUS, you can automatically install and distribute Microsoft security patches without using an internet connection for all clients and servers. It is not difficult to understand how it works and I think it's a very nice tool."
"I like that we could evaluate every client and compare some weaknesses and vulnerability exploits in Microsoft Windows Server Update Services. This is a useful way to test applications against an attacker attempting to exploit the operating system."
"It provides central management interface for deployment."
"We can track the updates of the PC and servers."
"Downloads critical reports separately."
"The central points of managing product updates have been the tool's most valuable features."
"The solution should have some kind of a local caching methodology, where the patches can be taken locally into a localized relay server, and from there, the patch can be applied, so that there is not much usage of the network required."
"I would eventually like to see a SaaS offering, a cloud-hosted BigFix instance where we only have to put a relay in our environment."
"To make it a ten they should improve the licensing. Second, if they could have one environment for everything it would be nice. For you to install compliance you need to install the server, and then you add the modules. For you to install inventory you install the server and then you add the modules. It's not easy to do. When I was doing it before I learned it, it was not straight forward."
"BigFix should improve its compatibility with other platforms, such as Linux."
"The deployment has room for improvement and can be more streamlined."
"They don't have a proper mobile device management capability. They're working on it, however, that's the one thing that needs improvement so that you can have full unified endpoint management."
"Around the scalability concern, I would like to see the ability to run teamed, clustered, or hierarchical root servers, in order to provide a more robust, high availability system. The single monolithic root server model does somewhat bother me."
"The sub-capacity licensing was a challenge for some of it. We had trouble getting it to calculate right."
"The solution must provide the issue description of the patches."
"The approval process must be improved."
"One area for potential improvement involves the administrative portal, where numerous options, including asset management and patch management, are integrated."
"In the next release, I would like to see additional tools added to fix the engine issues on the client's side."
"More integration with different platforms would be an improvement."
"The main problem with WSUS is that the management console doesn't allow you to do a lot of operations. It's actually quite a primitive console, and has been since day one. In order to be more effective, you need to use another tool from Microsoft that can take advantage of WSUS and also offer you the extra features you need."
"Setup is complex."
"There are some bugs in IIS."
More Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Pricing and Cost Advice →
BigFix is ranked 2nd in Patch Management with 91 reviews while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is ranked 3rd in Patch Management with 38 reviews. BigFix is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of BigFix writes "Very stable and easy to deploy with excellent patch compliance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services writes "Lets us manage all our organization's updates from a single management console". BigFix is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Tanium, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, whereas Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is most compared with ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Quest KACE Systems Management, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune and GFI LanGuard. See our BigFix vs. Microsoft Windows Server Update Services report.
See our list of best Patch Management vendors.
We monitor all Patch Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.