We performed a comparison between Microsoft Configuration Manager and OpenText Operations Orchestration based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Microsoft, ServiceNow and others in Server Monitoring."The ease of usability is the most valuable feature. It's user-friendly."
"The product is very stable compared to older versions."
"This solution has made life easy with respect to patching, compliance, and OSD."
"It is a very good solution. It has a good interface and is easy to use. On top of that, it is very reliable in terms of distribution as well as getting the report."
"Offers good patching."
"Patching is very effective and reporting is very good."
"This solution captures all the devices in our infrastructure."
"The main, clear valuable feature is updating the latest, patches and updates from Windows. This is the main feature we really utilize a lot."
"The product is good functionality-wise. I am impressed with the tool's flexibility in customization."
"It has reduced the time taken to go to market. In the past, we were struggling with building these integrations, but now the process has sped up and there is an added advantage of quick delivery. In addition, it is an agent-less solution, which provides more flexibility in terms of multiple options."
"It's very stable. If you ask me for the success rate metrics, it's more than 90% for both."
"The solution does not support remote devices so the CMG is still required."
"The cost of the product can be improved."
"The product needs to improve scalability."
"Some of the capabilities aren't fully developed yet. It's an ongoing work in progress. I think they are making some steps in the right direction as far as managing workstations centrally, like Intune."
"On some hardware, we'd like an easier way to get peripherals attached."
"This solution should be simpler, and more consistent across modules/sections."
"Its client interface should be more accessible, and the notifications should be more customizable from the console. It should be more user friendly and have some kind of customized notifications so that we can use it on the client side. These are the reasons why we restricted its use only for the server environment and didn't use it on the client side."
"There is no asset management package included."
"There were a lot of scalability issues that we initially faced. Whenever I tried to deploy 100-200 endpoints, it became a huge challenge. We had to actually start using other tools like Tivoli Endpoint Management in order to patch the issues."
"The price is an area that should be addressed because the price is high."
"The tool's UI needs to be improved. It needs to have better administration features in future releases."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText Operations Orchestration Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 2nd in Server Monitoring with 78 reviews while OpenText Operations Orchestration is ranked 17th in Process Automation with 24 reviews. Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2, while OpenText Operations Orchestration is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Seamless system updates, useful integration, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Operations Orchestration writes "HP OO blows away the competition, but has its fair share of flaws". Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, Microsoft Intune, BigFix and Tanium, whereas OpenText Operations Orchestration is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Control-M, Camunda, BigFix and Microsoft System Center Orchestrator.
We monitor all Server Monitoring 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.
