We performed a comparison between Microsoft Configuration Manager and NetCrunch based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We're a Microsoft-centric organization, so we are happy with the integration between products."
"I like the data collection."
"The initial setup is fairly straightforward."
"It is easy to install, and quick to deploy."
"Patching is the main feature because SCCM is made to control the entire environment without manually interpreting. So it is good to use for patching."
"I have found the solution to be scalable. We have around 50,000 users using the solution."
"With the right administrator, application deployment can do wonders."
"Microsoft has done a good job with authentication solutions, such as single sign-on, or open authentication."
"Reporting on NetCrunch is pretty good. It's very similar to SolarWinds. It's just a different interface. The majority of everything there was beneficial."
"The product needs to improve scalability."
"There's no way to say, "I want this maintenance window to be on the second Tuesday of the month." It's strict. This window is this and that's it. You can't fluctuate."
"It is a bit of an old and outdated product."
"Our company would prefer not rebooting computers while people are using them. There seems to be no strategy behind it."
"The main thing is that SCCM has to become an appliance instead of a server. When I say appliance, it has to come preconfigured so that it is drop-shipped into the enterprise and then you activate the feature sets that you want. It should pull down all the latest binaries. Once that is all there, it should have a discovery tool which goes out and discovers the assets within an enterprise. If the server, workstation, and applications are all coming from the same vendor, why not have the vendor do this work for us and automate it as much as it possibly can?"
"The time the solution takes for updating systems could be quicker. For example, the system information status is not updating as it should. Additionally, the database synchronization querying is slow and could be improved."
"The downside of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is it's an on-premise-based solution. With the pandemic coming on board the need to support users across the globe has increased. For a while, we would use the in-built Microsoft Teams screen sharing feature but the disadvantage of that is you cannot perform privileged access. Microsoft does not give you access to that. That's where you need cloud-based tools, such as BeyondTrust or Freshservice."
"It would be nice to have everything in one place. Now they have Intune for the desktops and SCCM to handle their servers."
"I didn't care for the role-based, permission-based options, which were not the best."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 2nd in Server Monitoring with 78 reviews while NetCrunch is ranked 25th in Server Monitoring. Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2, while NetCrunch is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Seamless system updates, useful integration, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetCrunch writes "A network monitoring platform with a useful reporting feature, but permission-based options could be better". Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, Microsoft Intune, BigFix and Tanium, whereas NetCrunch is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor and Fortinet FortiSIEM. See our Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. NetCrunch report.
See our list of best Server Monitoring vendors.
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.
