We performed a comparison between Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager and Quest KACE Systems Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Patch Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."When it comes to Ivanti Patch for endpoints, I find peer-to-peer patching valuable. Having a peer-to-peer patching capability is highly beneficial for us."
"It's been doing a lot for us, especially with third-party software patching and scheduling. We create multiple projects for monthly patch distribution and manage it all well."
"Clear visibility regarding the status of the endpoint."
"There is ease of use, and its pricing was a driving factor."
"The solution provides us a single pane of glass with everything that we need for endpoint management of all devices. It definitely has made our endpoint management process much easier."
"It also does patch management. At the moment, I'm rolling out a new feature update, 20.8.2, and it's a great challenge because we have to deploy it to 1,200 computers in the home office. We want to do it without interrupting production, but KACE is reliable and it's easy to adapt it to my needs for how and when to deploy the feature update."
"This solution makes it easy to control assets and upgrade all types of software."
"The software asset management has been a big help, even when it comes to license true-ups. I can use it to find out how many Tivoli we have, and boom, there's the number... And you can actually click on the information about the software and it shows, for example, that these five servers are where it's being reported. If you really want, you can log in to them and validate."
"We have our KACE agent deployed on all of our workstations and servers, and it provides us with reports on the hardware and software inventory for those."
"KACE has made our life much easier since we got off the Microsoft solution. The Microsoft solution was a lot harder to image over different ports and stuff. They would only have this one place where we could do all the imaging. Now, we have a whole building where we can image from. This means that we can image from our storage area, where we have a place to do our imaging. We can also image right at our desks, which is a lot easier."
"With KACE, we were able to have a simplification of the software deployment management with more granularity and flexibility."
"The major challenges are macOS updates, patching, and backups. And for drawbacks, I wish Patch management was cloud-based instead of hosted on our own server."
"Inability to configure a rule-based management."
"It would be great to have an easier way to patch Linux machines within the product."
"The problem is that it's harder to directly emulate a lot of the stuff that the group policies do, using the KACE solution. With regular group policies, you just specify the various settings you want to change on the workstations, and then you specify the workstations and—while it's kind of an ugly mess—it does it. Whereas on KACE, you really have to know what you're doing with scripting to effectively script those exact same changes."
"What could be improved is the possibility to use replicas in a secure way outside our network in order to maintain the machines that never connect to our corporate network."
"There is always room for improvement. However, the system does most of what we need at this moment."
"I would like them to implement VBScript language in KACE Systems Management. Currently, we can only use PowerShell."
"We had issues with the tool's support. We are a Dutch firm and everything has to be in Dutch. We were not able to do the alerts. You were required to tweak them a lot to get them in the language that you preferred. The solution's support depended on the person that you got online. Sometimes, the response was fast and other times you needed to wait a long time. The support also depended on the levels of support that you had requested."
"The customization of the interface needs improvement for things like end user tickets. While the functionality is good, some of that UI stuff does need improvement."
"The only hiccups we had were some power issues, where the box was a little under-powered early on."
"KACE implemented the possibility of reducing the network speed of the KACE agent. You can set it so that it takes whatever network speed you want or you can set it to 5 Mb, to save network speed. You set it for all the computers, but it would be preferable to separate between VPN connections in our home office and the local area. It would be great to be able to set separate speeds for different VLANs."
More Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Quest KACE Systems Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager is ranked 17th in Patch Management with 3 reviews while Quest KACE Systems Management is ranked 6th in Patch Management with 38 reviews. Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager is rated 8.0, while Quest KACE Systems Management is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager writes "Smoothly handles software patching and scheduling, enabling monthly patch distribution across multiple projects". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest KACE Systems Management writes "Easy to use, saves us time, and increases IT productivity". Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager is most compared with GFI LanGuard, Microsoft Configuration Manager and Ivanti Security Controls, whereas Quest KACE Systems Management is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, BigFix and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform. See our Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager vs. Quest KACE Systems Management 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.
