We performed a comparison between Puppet Enterprise and Quest KACE Systems Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Configuration Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features are the agent, high load balancing, and overall robustness and features."
"Anything that we manage through Puppet always runs perfectly."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to monitor updates—the software versions—on machines so that we can keep everything compliant."
"You don't have to be an advanced user. Rather, in terms of ease of use, this product is right where it needs to be."
"I can reach people now that I couldn't have reached previously. We are saving about 25 percent in time."
"We're able to deploy software and push out fixes to endpoints faster than ever."
"Asset management is most valuable. It is essential for all customers. The other features are also useful, but asset management is most important."
"It is excellent in terms of updating and configuring everything the way we need. For anything more complex, we do professional service engagements, and they're exceptional. For anything less complex, we just need to ask questions. Their support division is extremely good too."
"Patching is definitely the most valuable feature. It gives us good, centralized software, which comes in very handy since we are doing 400 servers at a time. It enables us to manage all the servers, and to deal with the application team regarding reboots and scheduling."
"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."
"The solution has really complex code, you have to understand the Ruby language. However, once you know the code then you can move ahead without any problems."
"It's a bit of a pain point to make sure that everything works once we've upgraded it because Puppet has been evolving pretty fast."
"I would sure like them to be able to copy and paste out of OneNote. That drives me nuts. You can't copy from OneNote into KACE."
"I have complaints about smart label adaptation and because of this, I recommend a 24 to 48 hour bake-in period."
"They could make the booting solution easier for different things, e.g., easier to insert drivers. They could make it easier to create a new image and put it onto the server. Those would be some nice solutions. They could make it so that somebody who has no knowledge at all can do it. That would be really nice. Because every time, until I get it memorized, I still need to go back to the training, the manual, or Google it to figure it out again. If they would make it a lot easier, to where a nine-year-old could do it, that would be really cool. If they made it easier, I could have more people managing the images on the server, instead of just one or two people."
"There is always room for improvement. However, the system does most of what we need at this moment."
"There should be a mini toolbox, like the competitors of KACE have, with the small features for KACE administrators. That would make their lives easier. If you are troubleshooting a specific endpoint, remote control is available as is Wake-on-LAN. But if you want to execute some commands, you have to use a third-party tool, the PS tool. If they would integrate those small things, it would make KACE more powerful."
"We'd love to see support for larger dependencies in the scripting feature."
"There isn't a lot they need to improve with the solution itself at this point. It is pretty close to providing a single pane of glass for everything that we need for endpoint management specifically on all devices. There is very little that it doesn't provide for us, and for those, we have to go to other methods. There are some of the patching solutions that it doesn't take care of for us. So, we have to do those manually on the devices, and that's really the biggest thing. It doesn't do patching really well for non-Microsoft applications. The major application updates, particularly Windows updates, don't function nearly as well, but, for the vast majority of things, it does just fine. If they could improve in this aspect, that'd be great, but I don't know if they're going to be able to do that."
"The software asset management functionality is an area that needs to be improved. It could be more automated because when connections need to be made, such as when I connected Adobe and my malware removed, the process was pretty much manual."
More Quest KACE Systems Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Puppet Enterprise is ranked 9th in Configuration Management with 2 reviews while Quest KACE Systems Management is ranked 4th in Configuration Management with 32 reviews. Puppet Enterprise is rated 9.0, while Quest KACE Systems Management is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Puppet Enterprise writes "A set-it-and-forget-it management solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest KACE Systems Management writes "We can see everything for the endpoint management of devices using a single interface". Puppet Enterprise is most compared with Red Hat Satellite, Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager, AWS Systems Manager, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and BigFix, whereas Quest KACE Systems Management is most compared with Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Microsoft Intune and BigFix. See our Puppet Enterprise vs. Quest KACE Systems Management 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.
