We performed a comparison between BigFix and Red Hat Satellite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Configuration Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The performance of Microsoft Intune is good."
"The Autopilot feature is fantastic. It is a Microsoft product, so it deals best with Microsoft operating systems, but it can integrate with iOS, Mac OS, Linux, and Android."
"The most important thing for me is the autopilot feature."
"The dashboards, the security, and the customization capabilities work very well for us."
"Agile and easy to deploy MDM solution that covers the maximum number of policies. Stable, scalable, and with knowledgeable technical support."
"The ability to push applications on devices is valuable. You do not have to manually install applications one by one. If you like to use ten different applications, you do not have to manually go and download them one by one. Intune can compile a package for you, and then you can just push them from the admin center."
"It is a very stable and scalable cloud-only solution."
"I like the group policy management feature, which performs application monitoring and device enrollment."
"The most valuable aspect of BigFix is its ability to patch desktops. While we have complete control over servers and can easily push patches to them, desktops pose a greater risk for leaks and vulnerabilities if patches are not installed in a timely manner. By using BigFix, we have significantly improved our ability to patch desktops, whether they are laptops, desktops, or other mobile devices used by end-users."
"BigFix can manage lost devices, so you can wipe them remotely to ensure the IP doesn't get out in public. Unified endpoint security is a new perspective. I know that HCL is also collaborating with IBM, but I'm not sure if there is any cooperation between them and MaaS360 or other endpoint components."
"It's very straightforward."
"The product is less costly when compared to other solutions, and this is a good solid solution for what we have paid."
"Patch Management for a variety of operating systems makes it valuable as we can rely on a single tool for obtaining patch compliance of the entire compute infrastructure."
"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."
"Between the user groups, the community, the AVP support, the direct access via technical route and the PMR support, half the time I don't even need to do a formal PMR because the solutions from the community resolve whatever issues we're having. It's the best community and support based system I've ever used."
"Ability to run custom reports and custom relevance."
"The product allows us to handle patching for multiple servers at a time manually."
"The most valuable feature is the management of the distributed tool we use in the Red Hat Linux Servers."
"The product helps me to manage a large number of servers from one console."
"The product is convenient to use."
"The most valuable feature is the fact that you don't have to expose your mission-critical environment to the Internet. With the Satellite system in place, it acts as a barrier between your Red Hat infrastructure and the public Internet."
"Technical support has been good."
"You don't need to depend on any third party. It's a complete solution for patch and configuration management when integrated with the existing system."
"Patch management is, for sure, most valuable. For license management and patch management, I would rate it a 10 out of 10."
"The main disadvantage seen today is regarding Linux clients. We have a lot of development resources that have Linux on their clients, and we can't manage them on the same platform, as we do with other clients such as macOS and Windows. So, it should have support for Linux clients. It should also have better support for macOS."
"The most important thing is reporting. They should improve their reporting. They should give a free hand to users. In SCCM, I can create my own reports. For example, in SCCM, I can create an inventory report for my PC or for all PCs, but in Intune, we don't have an option to create any report. Microsoft claims that Intune is a successor of SCCM, but SCCM is more powerful than Intune. So, they should develop Intune more and make it equivalent to SCCM. Then, their product will be great in the market."
"Microsoft Intune could improve by being more user-friendly and having it geared toward device management. The graphic interface is not very good."
"I'd suggest adding more features for macOS in Intune. There should be more functionality for managing macOS. There should be a better capability for pushing things down on macOS. Currently, Intune is not capable of managing macOS at the same level as Windows."
"Reporting and troubleshooting for the application deployment could be better. It's very difficult to understand."
"In the past, I raised some tickets for the enhancement feature, which was missing in Intune."
"The synchronization could be improved."
"I would like the ability to install the agent on devices from suppliers, which would enable us to implement a zero-trust strategy for guest devices."
"We would like to see a different license plan, e.g. to include features from lifecycle with Patch Management, as an example."
"The sub-capacity licensing was a challenge for some of it. We had trouble getting it to calculate right."
"The reporting structure could be a little more simplistic. Currently, it throws too many vulnerabilities. Some of them are not needed because they are only informational and limitations, and they are not of much help. It doesn't need to show us these things."
"I would like to see more integration with external data."
"The stability is generally pretty good. The one thing that we came across is the battle between load on endpoints and load on our servers and relays versus how quickly, effectively and reliably actions can be taken. I'd like to not have to take an action on a system while I'm working with someone and then have to say whether something will happen between five seconds or thirty minutes from that point."
"I'm looking for them to make big web UI improvements."
"We need a much better multi-tenant option."
"Sometimes the workstations communicate back to the BigFix server two or three days in a week or something similar. Sometimes there can be a delay reporting back to the server for a variety of reasons, such as users turning their computer off when they go home. When the user comes back and turns the computer back on BigFix needs to synchronize and sometimes it can take some time, approximately one week. The communication between the agent and the server should be faster, there is room for improvement in this area."
"There needs to be some margin for improvement in terms of the way Satellite manages subscriptions. It is still very confusing when we have different contracts or different bundles of subscriptions, and we need to manage those within Satellite in a way that's very user-friendly."
"It should basically include a complete slew of system management and monitoring tools such as Nagios. It should be a single pane of glass that gives us a complete solution. It is a good solution, but it is missing a few important things. We're using Capsule for DMVs on other secured zones. Capsule is a part of Satellite to be a proxy of sorts."
"Automation can always be improved and refined to continue to make it better."
"They could make it more easy to use and improve the GUI so that it's more intuitive."
"The dashboard of Satellite is not encouraging. It does not adequately showcase all the functionality it offers."
"Red Hat Satellite's pricing needs improvement."
"Red Hat Satellite has a short life cycle and we constantly need to update."
"The product could have more diversity in what it is able to deploy and might do better if it was not dedicated to Red Hat products only."
BigFix is ranked 5th in Configuration Management with 91 reviews while Red Hat Satellite is ranked 4th in Configuration Management with 21 reviews. BigFix is rated 8.6, while Red Hat Satellite is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of BigFix writes "Very stable and easy to deploy with excellent patch compliance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Satellite writes "A good product for managing patches and updates that could be more robust and up-to-date". BigFix is most compared with Microsoft Configuration Manager, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Tanium, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and AWS Systems Manager, whereas Red Hat Satellite is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, SUSE Manager, Microsoft Configuration Manager, AWS Systems Manager and Chef. See our BigFix vs. Red Hat Satellite report.
See our list of best Configuration Management vendors.
We monitor all Configuration 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.