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
7.7
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
Patch Management (5th)
N-able N-central
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
9
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 6.8%, down 8.4% compared to last year.
N-able N-central, on the other hand, focuses on Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM), holds 9.2% mindshare, down 11.4% since last year.
Patch Management
Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM)
 

Featured Reviews

AdeolaEkunola - PeerSpot reviewer
A quite straightforward solution that works easily with different operating systems
Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. When the use of the solution for customers grows, there is a need for more endpoints, and it may grow up to 500 endpoints, and the solution's use may even be scaled up further. It is possible to do what is needed to scale up the solution for the IT environments of any of our company's customers. Before scaling up, one needs to buy the license and consider the IT architecture to see if there are any modifications required in the solution. Around three of my company's customers who manage enterprise-sized businesses with a minimum requirement of 700 endpoints at least use the solution.
Dimitri V G - PeerSpot reviewer
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

"It does not restart unexpectedly, allowing automation anytime, even during weekends."
"The solution supports patching not only Microsoft products but also non-Microsoft products, which is beneficial for me."
"The automated patch deployment feature is really helpful. I can schedule it anytime, even on weekends, without needing to restart systems. The centralized management and unified console are great. It shows me which PCs are out of date or which users are breaching our policies. I can test patches before deploying them."
"The solution's technical support is top-notch. Whenever I have a question, they get back to me immediately, which is probably one of the best features of the solution's technical support."
"I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable features are patch management and mobile device management."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is lightweight and has a remote push feature that helps me manage several main sites and subsites."
"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 very scalable."
"I like the remote connectivity, reporting suite, and patch management module."
"It's a very robust product. They're continuing to invest and put new enhancements into the product. They're very open about what their roadmap is, which is very good for us because then as a business, we can plan."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of N-able N-central is the many options it has."
 

Cons

"There are limitations to this solution when we are working with iOS, Apple laptops or desktops such as the Mac and iMac."
"If a report shows that testing did not work for one version but succeeds for another, a comparison would be beneficial."
"The cloud version should have option to add all the endpoints using the agent. Not only for Windows, but also the Linux version. There are some versions which are not compatible with SaaS Manager. So some customers do not want to use the latest version of Linux latest version of CentOS. Actually, CentOS is not available. But some are using and patch manager is compatible for some versions only, not older older versions. So there are some pros and cons that are referred to patch management."
"I experienced issues with server 2012, which required an upgrade to 2016 for better functionality before moving to Azure."
"The commercial aspect of ManageEngine is challenging due to their lack of presence in Brazil, which makes obtaining proposals difficult."
"The solution's UI is an area that requires improvement."
"Patching over the Internet should be improved. If I am traveling, I should have an Internet patching option for control, visibility, and vulnerability management for roaming users."
"Patching over the Internet should be improved."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the development of custom monitoring services."
"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."
"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."
"The integration with other applications could be better."
"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."
"Involving AI in the platform could improve it further."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution cost is around $5,000 per year."
"The price of this product is reasonable."
"The pricing for ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is on the moderate side."
"I rate the price of the product a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive."
"Its price needs improvement."
"I rate the product price a three on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price."
"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.
861,803 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
16%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Performing Arts
6%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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?
Patching over the Internet should be improved. If I am traveling, I should have an Internet patching option for control, visibility, and vulnerability management for roaming users. Additionally, in...
What needs improvement with N-able N-central?
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 whic...
What is your primary use case for N-able N-central?
My use cases for N-able N-central always start with hardware monitoring, but since Enable expanded its portfolio, it's always getting more and more options and use cases. Sometimes we start with th...
 

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, HCLSoftware , Qualys and others in Patch Management. Updated: July 2025.
861,803 professionals have used our research since 2012.