We performed a comparison between Microsoft Windows Server Update Services and Quest KACE Systems Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Patch Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Compared to Linux, Windows Server’s setup is easier."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is the efficiency once configured."
"PowerShell is a valuable feature."
"The product provides a valuable Single Sign-On (SSO) integration feature within our IES environment, particularly with the IT directory and server systems."
"A valuable feature about this solution is that it enforces an updating and patching process for my applications."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to identify which updates are needed on a particular machine."
"The noteworthy aspect is the system's capability to handle an extensive range of services and workloads, with the potential for almost unlimited scalability."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is an easy-to-use and stable solution."
"The ability to push an image to a machine, wake that image up, and just blast a new image to a computer without even having to touch it, and then push the software to that machine. This just made things so much more convenient for us and so much more efficient."
"We can get the majority of what we need with this product and do not have to spend money on something else."
"The service desk can be configured and customized to better serve our environment."
"KACE has made our life much easier since we got off the Microsoft solution. The Microsoft solution was a lot harder to image over different ports and stuff. They would only have this one place where we could do all the imaging. Now, we have a whole building where we can image from. This means that we can image from our storage area, where we have a place to do our imaging. We can also image right at our desks, which is a lot easier."
"The solution provides us a single pane of glass with everything that we need for endpoint management of all devices. It definitely has made our endpoint management process much easier."
"KACE’s knowledge-based articles are very good."
"The big pros of Quest KACE Systems Management are its simple interface, and simple, direct management. It's very easy to maintain and manage the device, and it's easy to get it up and running. You can have it up and running in an hour..."
"With KACE, we were able to have a simplification of the software deployment management with more granularity and flexibility."
"The database could be improved. In large environments, for example, we often get problems with reporting."
"We have some problems when we update the servers."
"The reporting is not as practical as I would like it to be."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could improve by being less cumbersome to use. It's somewhat difficult to use, but we manage to get through it."
"There are some bugs in IIS."
"More integration with different platforms would be an improvement."
"The main problem with WSUS is that the management console doesn't allow you to do a lot of operations. It's actually quite a primitive console, and has been since day one. In order to be more effective, you need to use another tool from Microsoft that can take advantage of WSUS and also offer you the extra features you need."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could improve the ease of use."
"I think it should have the ability to have the applications automatically update. It would be really helpful if this would override what the user might choose to do."
"There is always room for improvement. However, the system does most of what we need at this moment."
"When we have to do a rebuild on these machines, although it is rare, I would like to be able to do more than 10 at a time. With the current limit, it slows me down because I have to set up 10, then the next 10, and so forth."
"I have complaints about smart label adaptation and because of this, I recommend a 24 to 48 hour bake-in period."
"What could be improved is the possibility to use replicas in a secure way outside our network in order to maintain the machines that never connect to our corporate network."
"We'd love to see support for larger dependencies in the scripting feature."
"One of the complications is that they don't have 24/7 support, and they're also not in our time zone... Sometimes, no matter how critical my application is, if my production server is down I won't be able to connect with anybody till 11:00 AM Eastern Standard Time."
"The GUI needs some work. I love all that it can do, however, it can be just be so cluttered at times."
More Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Quest KACE Systems Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is ranked 3rd in Patch Management with 38 reviews while Quest KACE Systems Management is ranked 6th in Patch Management with 38 reviews. Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is rated 8.0, while Quest KACE Systems Management is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services writes "Lets us manage all our organization's updates from a single management console". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest KACE Systems Management writes "Easy to use, saves us time, and increases IT productivity". Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is most compared with BigFix, ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune and GFI LanGuard, whereas Quest KACE Systems Management is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, BigFix, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune. See our Microsoft Windows Server Update Services vs. Quest KACE Systems Management report.
See our list of best Patch Management vendors.
We monitor all Patch 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.
