"We are happy with the collaboration of SCCM with Patch My PC, which allows us to do patch work."
"SCCM does everything from A to Z for a Windows operating system."
"The major features of this product are the reporting tools. The most valuable features are package deployment and application deployment. Security management is also good because any vulnerability will be identified, and you can fix it. It's the best tool because you never know what kind of client you will have. For example, you may have your offices in low bandwidth remote areas. But it's achievable because it accommodates the bandwidth that you have available. Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is an excellent reporting tool for your environment. If you want to know the details about the hardware configuration, software configuration, what is causing a problem, or when a new feature update comes in for Windows, even that goes on SCCM itself. A lot of deployment stuff."
"SCCM is a stable solution."
"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."
"The technical support is good."
"It uses detailed descriptions of the workstations, and that is good for me."
"Offers good patching."
"You don't need to depend on any third party. It's a complete solution for patch and configuration management when integrated with the existing system."
"Satellite gives administrators the ability to target deployments and only send out the updates or provision updates to certain groups."
"It cuts down significantly on the administrative time it takes to patch systems in a large environment."
"The 'remote execution' feature further helps manage systems on a consistent basis."
"I like the integration with other tools."
"Technical support has been good."
"Fixing is the most valuable. When you deal with a lot of hardware and software and you have a lot of packages, fixing is a bit difficult. You need to track and pull up all such things, but Satellite makes this task easy. We have branches in other locations, and I can manage other branches by using Satellite Capsule, which is a great feature."
"Patch management is, for sure, most valuable. For license management and patch management, I would rate it a 10 out of 10."
"I would like to see more automation."
"The TSM component could be improved."
"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."
"In terms of the monitoring, the timeframe it takes to actually report back on the compliance of a device after it has been patched is a bit too long."
"The database should be made to be more stable and robust, but not so much the configuration."
"The ability to integrate MDM would be great."
"SCCM does not scale well, which is one of the reasons we are not going to continue to use it."
"It should provide the ability to remotely connect to mobile devices. There are some solutions that are doing that, but with Microsoft Intune, the only way to remotely connect to devices outside the organization and mobile devices is by using TeamViewer. It is pretty strange for a big company like Microsoft to not have something for that."
"I would like the direct integration with insights to be re-established."
"I would like to see the scalability, user interface, and reporting features improved and for the solution to be simplified. Instead of having complex engineering, it should be simple for the user."
"It should basically include a complete slew of system management and monitoring tools such as Nagios. It should be a single pane of glass that gives us a complete solution. It is a good solution, but it is missing a few important things. We're using Capsule for DMVs on other secured zones. Capsule is a part of Satellite to be a proxy of sorts."
"The product could have more diversity in what it is able to deploy and might do better if it was not dedicated to Red Hat products only."
"It has not been significantly updated in a while."
"There needs to be some margin for improvement in terms of the way Satellite manages subscriptions. It is still very confusing when we have different contracts or different bundles of subscriptions, and we need to manage those within Satellite in a way that's very user-friendly."
"Automation can always be improved and refined to continue to make it better."
"It wasn't easy in the beginning, and some effort was required to work it out. I already had the product documentation, but it was not well organized. It wasn't easy to follow. There were a lot of documents here and there."
More Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is ranked 1st in Configuration Management with 37 reviews while Red Hat Satellite is ranked 6th in Configuration Management with 8 reviews. Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Satellite is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager writes "A stable systems management software product with useful package deployment and application deployment features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Satellite writes "A good product for managing patches and updates that could be more robust and up-to-date". Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, BigFix, ManageEngine Desktop Central, Ivanti Patch for Windows and ServiceNow Discovery, whereas Red Hat Satellite is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, HashiCorp Terraform, SUSE Manager, AWS Systems Manager and BigFix. See our Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager vs. Red Hat Satellite report.
See our list of best Configuration Management vendors.
We monitor all Configuration 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.
