Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager Reviews

It's been doing a lot for us, especially with third-party software patching and scheduling. We create multiple projects for monthly patch distribution and manage it all well. 

We face some challenges, particularly with non-domain-joined macOS devices. Patching, updating, and syncing with the server can be tricky for them.

So, the major challenges are macOS updates, patching, and backups.

And for drawbacks, I wish Patch management was cloud-based instead of hosted on our own server.

If Ivanti Patch had a cloud-based option instead of requiring an on-premises server and software. Hosting it in the cloud would simplify management, eliminating dependence on VPNs or other connectivity issues.

Similar to Microsoft's EMS licensing, offering a cloud-based solution like Azure Active Directory or Endpoint Management Suite (EMS) would be ideal. EMS allows us to manage policies, batching, and software distribution entirely through the cloud, minimizing server downloads. 

If Ivanti considered a cloud-based approach, it would be hugely beneficial in today's hybrid work environment, where employees use desktops, laptops, and various locations. It's not just about patching office PCs anymore; mobile workers and backups need seamless access as well.

Cloud-based patching would be much easier in a hybrid environment. Imagine updates coming directly from the cloud instead of relying on individual VPN connections. It would streamline the entire process.

We've been using it for the past year and a half. We initially used Ivanti security patching, but now we have the full Endpoint Management solution.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. There are certain things that could be improved.

Ivanti has agents deployed on 1600 endpoints. Depending on growth, We expect more people to join and will expand accordingly.

Our support is through a local partner. They escalate if needed, but resolving issues can take time due to testing and follow-ups.  

Neutral

Deploying the Ivanti agent can be tricky. It needs to be built to the machine or manually deployed, which isn't possible over the cloud, only through a VPN. This becomes a little difficult, especially when users aren't connected to a VPN, and we need to push the agent to new laptops sent directly to their homes or workplaces. It requires coordination and manual connection before pushing the agent automatically.

But once deployed, Patch itself and distribution are smooth. Patching new machines isn't the issue unless a large patch requires significant internet bandwidth at the user's end. Otherwise, we haven't had major problems with Patch deployment. It's a good product.

We have around 20 people working on handling deployment and related tasks: engineers, developers, and a few engineers at different levels from level 1 to level 3.

Most of our deployment is already done. Now, it's mostly adding individuals, maybe three users per day or 10 to 15 users per week. Per person, deployment takes about 15-20 minutes, including scheduling, contacting them,

It's affordable, not as expensive as others. I would rate the pricing a five out of ten, where one is very expensive and ten is cheap. 

There are no additional costs to the standard license. We have annual upgrades.

We tested a few, but their deployment and management processes were cumbersome. My team even got confused during POCs. 

Ivanti is more convenient, easy to deploy, and logically designed for our needs.

I would recommend using this solution to other users. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution to patch Windows and Linux machines. We download the patches and implement them. We get vulnerability reports after patching.

Earlier, we faced some challenges while installing patches. Maybe there were agent compatibility issues. Now, Ivanti helps install patches easily.

We can push many things from a centralized endpoint system. If we want to install software on multiple servers, we can do it from the centralized system. We can also run commands and push packages from a centralized location. We can automate things. Images are deployed on our laptops through Ivanti. Whenever a new laptop comes, we connect to the network, and the system gets installed with predefined applications. It happens automatically.

The UI must be more user-friendly.

The tool is stable. We have a single node. Sometimes, it gets slow. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The tool is scalable. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We have six to seven users for patching and management. We have around 10,000 clients.

The support must be faster.

The setup is not complicated. We recently upgraded the tool to its latest version. It took us three to four days. We must also upgrade the SQL database. After the upgrade, we must deploy the latest agent to all the endpoints to get all the new features and capabilities. We faced some challenges.

The product is easy to use, easy to implement, and easy to manage. We can have a centralized location. We can have vulnerabilities, patches, and reports in one location. We can manage all the endpoints and put policies.

Microsoft also provides a tool to push patches. I used Microsoft Windows Server Update Services a long time ago. With Ivanti, we can push the patches and restart the system remotely. We don't have to be available on the system.

We have one technical person. My team handles the patches for Windows and Linux. The product is good for endpoints. I do not recommend the tool for servers. Microsoft's predefined patching solution is a better choice for servers. Overall, I rate the product a seven to eight out of ten.

I'm primarily focused on patch management. Ivanti is a comprehensive solution, but my expertise lies in the patch management aspect for our customers. Specifically, I handle Windows patching and similar guest services.

When it comes to Ivanti Patch for endpoints, I find peer-to-peer patching valuable. Having a peer-to-peer patching capability is highly beneficial for us.

In terms of endpoint devices, enhancing network bandwidth is crucial. Additionally, if we consider third-party tools like VLC or other software, Ivanti can patch them and even enhance network bandwidth. 

However, when comparing it with SCCM and similar tools, they will consume more bandwidth, which negatively affects network performance. So, by using Ivanti, I can effectively improve our network bandwidth as well.

When dealing with SCCM, it tends to use more bandwidth in comparison to Ivanti. Therefore, I can secure better network bandwidth utilization by utilizing Ivanti.

In future releases, I would like to see the inclusion of Linux patching for end-user machines. It would be great to have an easier way to patch Linux machines within the product.

I have been using this solution for five years.

It is a very stable solution. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

In fact, I have a customer who is a banker, and we deployed it four years ago. It's remarkable that I haven't encountered a single issue or had to troubleshoot any user-level problems. My customers also find it easy to handle, as it efficiently detects and addresses any issues.

I would rate the scalability of this solution a nine out of ten. Just purchase new licenses and deploy Ivanti Patch in your existing environment. It can handle a large number of users, specifically around 500 to 5000 users. This makes it highly scalable.

We cater to both small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as well as larger enterprises.

I contact the distributor for support. 

The initial setup is really easy. It's not a difficult task. I find it quite straightforward. The installation takes two days. However, a roll-out plan takes around a month because it depends on the number of users. 

In terms of pricing, it is on the expensive side.

Clients don't directly pay. I personally purchased the license from Ivanti or an Ivanti distributor, and then I forwarded it to my customers. After the purchase, they reimburse me for the license on an individual basis.

It is a very good solution. There are multiple reasons why I suggest Ivanti Patch for Endpoints. Firstly, it offers peer-to-peer patching, which is an excellent feature. Additionally, it provides third-party patching capabilities, which is highly beneficial. These features make Ivanti Patch for Endpoints a very good solution.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We were looking for a central console to manage our endpoint, especially for patch management and the service after deployment. We already had security so overall our challenge was that the initial patch management interval deployment was a manual process and that was a struggle. I was employed to execute and implement the solution for the entire organization which has around 1,300 people. We are customers of Ivanti and I'm an information technology consultant.

Because of the internet gateway, we were able to get clear visibility regarding the status of the endpoint which we needed to do recently when everyone was working from home. Reporting and management is via the central console which gets its information from the cloud gateway.

I'm currently struggling with one of the issues related to Linux or Ubuntu. Unfortunately, half of my servers are Ubuntu development servers. Ivanti does not support Ubuntu and it has a limitation of CentOS to a specific version, which is CentOS 7, not 8. The second challenge is that I cannot configure a rule-based management that would enable me to assign rules to different levels in the IT organization itself; releasing and management of these patches. That rule-based management is missing. I'm learning a lot along the way but these are the two issues I'm facing now. 

I also had a COVID-related issue where employees working from home were not able to get updates unless they could get a VPN connection and that's something that could be changed. 

I've been using this solution for six months. 

I think the stability of this solution is good. 

I think the scalability is good. It's sufficient for my requirements and I can easily add more machines. We hope to expand at some point but it all depends on how the business will grow. I'm just going for 1,300 licenses for now and expanding to my Windows servers. 

I only used the technical support during the implementation process and setup, and they were good. We still have a couple of issues connected to Ubuntu that I'm waiting for them to get back to us about which required assistance from their development team. I was surprised that this is something that every administrator can ask for. Where there are gaps, the response is quite slow but for overall trouble shooting, they are good. 

From my experience to date, this is a lightweight solution if you compare it to a product such as SCCM which is a big tool. For a small to mid-size organization that might not have the funds to go for the expensive software licensing, this is a good, cost effective solution.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.