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

ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus vs N-able N-central 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

ManageEngine Patch Manager ...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Patch Management (7th)
N-able N-central
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus and N-able N-central aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is designed for Patch Management and holds a mindshare of 5.3%, down 8.4% compared to last year.
N-able N-central, on the other hand, focuses on Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM), holds 8.2% mindshare, down 12.8% since last year.
Patch Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus5.3%
Microsoft Configuration Manager9.5%
NinjaOne8.4%
Other76.8%
Patch Management
Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
N-able N-central8.2%
Kaseya VSA17.5%
NinjaOne12.2%
Other62.1%
Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM)
 

Featured Reviews

AK
Technology Lead at GMG
Supports security compliance through automated patching and seamless customer service
The solution supports patching not only Microsoft products but also non-Microsoft products, which is beneficial for me. It also helps in updating custom applications I use from a point-of-sale perspective. The software covers platform security and application security, ensuring everything is updated at the endpoint level. Automated patch deployment is used for all Active Directory servers. I have automated testing for patches by Microsoft and verify the status via email notifications. After a week, the automation process is applied to all activated servers to ensure upgrades and patches are implemented.
Dimitri V G - PeerSpot reviewer
Team Manager Fiber & Backhaul Solutions Center & South at Telenet BVBA
Maximizing operational efficiency with comprehensive monitoring and automation capabilities
There are areas in N-able N-central that could be improved. We always started it from the basic purpose of monitoring hardware, where vendors such as HP and Dell try to sell their own services which monitor and provide a dashboard, which is their logic. They want to make their own recurring revenue on that. We notice that SNMP has had a good run and still sometimes is used, but it's becoming an issue to maintain the same capabilities because HP makes it unreliable or even removes certain features that we used to be able to validate redundant array of independent disks. Our service that has been running for 15-20 years suddenly is not working anymore because HP decided in generation 10 plus and above, or generation 10 hardware in servers, storage controllers particularly, they just didn't put the SNMP OIDs anymore. We are now following that market change or business change in hardware monitoring and the future is Redfish, REST API, IPMI type of monitoring with the REST API and Redfish being most common. We have to do the effort ourselves because Enable is not really strategically going there because I assume there's not much money to make to improve that or to convince customers to start with their product. That issue could be better if they would be more prepared for that change and give us customers more tools, preconfigured, pre-available custom services for Redfish, REST API, where we just have to put a few items username, password and address and some dots and commas, but that we don't have to reinvent the wheel, which we are doing at the moment. We are using HP iLO commandlets and REST APIs for Aruba. Dell is making it very hard to monitor their hardware. If it has an iDRAC, I can manage it and monitor it, but if it's something that's less common or due to the portfolio, they have done a good job at not exposing information about health. We would just want to have a red or a green dot that indicates if this device is healthy or not healthy. Since nobody's investing in SNMP because it's a liability in security, they should invest in making a REST API and preferably also do the work on making it easy to pull or push information. That's something that the industry in general and Enable in particular could do a significant job to help us monitor.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The integration with both Linux and Microsoft systems is seamless."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is centralized management."
"ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus covers almost all my end devices, and I can easily look over my device's hardware status."
"ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is lightweight and has a remote push feature that helps me manage several main sites and subsites."
"I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"It does not restart unexpectedly, allowing automation anytime, even during weekends."
"The best features in ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus are the connectivity across different platforms, such as connectivity with Rapid7, connectivity with CrowdStrike, and connectivity with the SIEM solution."
"I like the remote connectivity, reporting suite, and patch management module."
"The most valuable features of N-central are its ease of deployment and ease of use."
"The most helpful features of N-able N-central include providing a single pane of glass for many insights in an environment regarding their patching, their assets, their devices in general, and the active issues that they show."
"The solution's service is good."
"N-able N-central has numerous good features. The asset tracking capability is powerful, allowing you to track hardware and software on devices connected to your network. The remote control is smooth, securely enabling remote access to servers and routers. It can be integrated with ticketing systems and other tools like CrowdStrike and N-able EDR for comprehensive network monitoring and security. The automation feature is handy, allowing you to schedule tasks, respond to system triggers, and automate problem resolution, such as handling disk space issues automatically."
"N-able N-central is an easy tool to implement with customers."
"N-able N-central is very scalable."
"The transition to N-able N-central was very smooth; we were confident that our migration would not affect any operations, and it was easy to migrate our clients into the new solutions."
 

Cons

"ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus needs to improve speed."
"I experienced issues with server 2012, which required an upgrade to 2016 for better functionality before moving to Azure."
"The only area for improvement in ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, which I noticed, is the reporting."
"The solution's initial setup is not straightforward, and we have to customize it with our relevant features."
"The tool's support needs improvement."
"The solution should have a customer label where we can label those servers or include those servers for specific customers."
"I think ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus could improve its testing capabilities. If they could test different SQL versions and server versions in their sandbox, it would be better. For example, it didn't work well with Server 2012, but it works fine with 2016 and up."
"They should add better features for managing hardware."
"The solution's overall integration should be improved."
"We have to do the effort ourselves because Enable is not really strategically going there because I assume there's not much money to make to improve that or to convince customers to start with their product."
"It was previously expensive and tedious to manage different licenses."
"At this moment, we encounter stability issues with N-able N-central from time to time."
"N-central has limited mobile device management (MDM) support, specifically for Android devices. This limitation affected a deal with a client who had numerous Android devices to manage. It would be beneficial if N-central could expand its MDM support to include Android devices."
"N-able N-central could improve the remote access, my technicians have complained about it. They have used other free tools instead to compensate, such as TeamViewer. Additionally, when using remote access on the web, it is lacking reports."
"The support from our direct team is very good, but the support from their day-to-day ongoing help desk isn't that good. They have still got some work to do on that, but they have been focusing on that a lot over the last number of years. So, it has gotten a lot better than it was."
"The industry has moved towards Redfish for out-of-band and in-band monitoring, yet N-able N-central still relies on older protocols like SNMP."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the price of the product a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive."
"The pricing for ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is on the moderate side."
"I rate the product price a three on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price."
"ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is a little bit cheaper."
"Its price needs improvement."
"The solution cost is around $5,000 per year."
"Patch Manager is cost-effective."
"Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and the charge for support is extra."
"N-able N-central is not an expensive solution."
"The pricing and licensing are average, almost six out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Patch Management solutions are best for your needs.
879,310 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
11%
University
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
7%
University
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise3
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise1
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus?
The pricing for ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is reasonable. There is a concern regarding the exchange rate as one dollar equals six reais today, making everything expensive in dollars for us.
What needs improvement with ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus?
While it's a good feature, it needs some improvement. Different patch manager competitors have functionality with AI inside, so if that could be integrated, it would be much easier for the end-user...
What needs improvement with N-able N-central?
The MSP part of N-able N-central has evolved over the years. They have been trying to move from professional or network server and desktop licensing to make it more comprehensive. With professional...
What is your primary use case for N-able N-central?
We have been dealing with Enable EDR and N-able N-central, which is a management center. It's the NOC solution that we are currently running our asset management on. We are managing tasks in that e...
What advice do you have for others considering N-able N-central?
There's a new node for N-able N-central which they have addressed. Our outstanding items include reviewing our pricing and partnership level, which can provide additional benefits when we exceed 10...
 

Also Known As

No data available
SolarWinds N-central, SolarWinds MSP N-central
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

IKEA Honda UNICEF The University of Georgia Evander
Premier Technology Solutions
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Qualys, HCLSoftware and others in Patch Management. Updated: November 2025.
879,310 professionals have used our research since 2012.