KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) Reviews

We use K1000 as multiple ticket queues, as well as 1 queue setup as a KanBan project management type of setup.

We also have a custom queue (we're still setting it up) for our new hire/employee change/employee exit process (with over 50 custom ticket rules).

We use K1000 for our patch management of over 2000 workstations.

We also use K1000 for all (or most) software deployment and for purchase order tracking and some asset controls

It is definitely an all in one platform.

Patching is more accurate. The ticket system workflow is good.

It is nice to be able to see right on the home page how the patching went from the night before.

The software installs are better now that there is only one place to get the install from. This helps to maintain consistency of the software that is installed on our workstations.

The tracking down of assets that have gone offline has been nice with the ability to configure and set up custom weekly reports for devices that have not been seen in X days etc.

The patching and scripting are great. Both have helped to streamline and improve the workflow and the integrity of our workstations.

When vulnerabilities are exploited so much, it is nice to be able to quickly detect or deploy what is needed within our off-work hours or during work hours without a reboot.

Being able to create a custom install for a new piece of software and/or set them up as a managed install is nice to ensure that systems have the software that is needed for the user and their job duties.

The fact that there is so much that can be customized with K1000 is great, however, some lack real-world higher-level customization without having to get other(s) (professional services) involved (and the extra costs in general) would be ideal.

Paying for the product should come with full and extended training anytime it is needed.

I am not sure if our organization is just ahead of the pack on what we demand and or how we want to utilize the K1000, however, even if it takes a little bit of time, so far, we have always been able to figure out what we need and make it happen with the K1000.

I've used the solution for over four years.

Knock on wood, we have not had any major issues. The backups are easy to restore if there is an issue (just make sure they are set up and you keep them off-site).

No one wants or ever expects any of their servers to get corrupt, but it CAN happen..

If and when there are any issues.. ALWAYS make sure your backups are running as well as being stored off site.

We had to rebuild our k1000 VM 1 time and luckily we had a "good" backup that we were able to restore...

Other than needing to update our VM resources, it seems to scale very well.

Chat support is awesome, and if needed to elevate to full support, they usually get with you quickly. Although it seems we (my company) always discover strange issues with K1000, they are always there to help

For patching we used WSUS and we always had issues with the patches not being applied and or reboots happening - causing end users to lose data. etc.

The setup process was not good with the Dell people. We had horrible training and the setup was not right on a bunch of stuff. It took almost a year before the patching was working 100% due to the original setup not done correctly.

We originally purchased through a vendor (from what I can remember) and it was installed via a Dell trainer/remote software etc. 

I'm not sure about my ROI (my boss might know), however, I am sure it has paid for itself by now.

I would advise others to ensure you get the initial training when it is set up (we bought into KACE when Dell owned them). We did not get trained very well at all.

Make sure to know what all of you want, and ask questions.

We looked into a few other products. I do not remember which ones now.

K1000 just works - plain and simple.

We use KACE internally in our company to deliver and manage services for our customers. We access it every day. We are on the support page every day. KACE is open in my browser all the time.

We provide our own KACE services to customers. We are managing more than 85,000 machines by using KACE. In terms of the setup, sometimes, there is a shared environment, and sometimes, there is a dedicated environment. 

Our customers are in retail, power, healthcare, and education. We have more than 20 customers with recurring contracts, and we have had many customers for one-time projects. 

Our customers use KACE for inventory and software delivery and distribution. They use it to apply policies and generate reports. We have some customers who use it for Service Desk. We have done some customizations on Service Desk for ITSM in terms of assets and CMDB to maintain all information related to IT assets.

It provides IT asset management, compliance, software asset management, mobile device management, and patch management. We don't use mobile device management and patch management internally, but we do provide it to our customers. We have some customers who use MDM and patch management. Having all these in one solution is very important for us because Unirede provides monitoring to customers. By using the KACE solution, we are able to provide endpoint management for our customers. This is a gap that KACE filled for us. It is very important for us. We get more than 30% of the revenue through endpoint management for our customers.

It saves time, which is its most important benefit. When you automate tasks, there is a lot of time-saving. Based on the feedback from our customers, it has saved more than 50% time.

It provides what we need for updating and configuring everything the way we need it to be in our environment. For me, it is very easy. It is not a big deal to update when necessary. 

We use Systems Deployment Appliance (SDA) for Windows and Linux devices in our environment. We have used SDA for internal use, for training, and for our customers. We have a few customers who have SDA in place on-premise. We sometimes also use the product to migrate the environment. For example, we use it for migrating from Windows 7 to Windows 10. At the beginning of the pandemic, some of the customers bought a lot of notebooks to make their employees work from home, and we provided migration services to them. By using SDA, we are able to do implementation in a short period, such as one, two, or three months. It is very good for automating the deployments, but, of course, it can be improved. Improvements are always welcomed.

It has increased IT productivity. With SDA, we can reduce a lot of time to provide a new installation. From hours, it gets reduced to minutes. Some customers have told us that their technicians used to spend the whole shift deploying one machine, whereas, with SDA, they could do it in less than one hour for one machine. They were also able to provide a new installation in 30 minutes.

We use machine profiles. We have profiles for the HR department, technicians, etc. We create smart labels related to this information, and we associate the tasks for software, scripts, installation, updates, etc. When the computer is turned on and has the agents installed on it, we detect the profile, and we install and run everything in a few minutes. This is another way to reduce the effort to keep our environment up to date and do automatic installations.

Asset management is most valuable. It is essential for all customers. The other features are also useful, but asset management is most important.

Everything is easy to use. KACE was created to be easy. It is very easy as compared to other solutions such as System Center, but it is important to have knowledge of some of the important concepts. For example, the knowledge of smart labels is critical. If you don't have knowledge of smart labels, you won't get its 100% benefit.

We use the Cloud MDM functionality. Its Windows and Mac enrollment capabilities for allowing IT admins to bypass manual device setup are fine. We provide management as a service to some customers, and they have Windows, Linux, and Mac. We also use it for our internal use in the company.

Its dashboard needs improvement. Currently, there is no way to modify the dashboard. There should be more flexibility so that we can create views according to our use case.

They can add some tips in the UI to help with the configuration. It will make the interface more user-friendly.

Its reporting also needs to be improved. Its reports are just textual, but we need a graphical report. We should be able to create dashboard views by using different types of graphics, such as pivot graphics. This functionality is currently missing.

We use the Cloud MDM functionality. Its interface is a little bit different from the SDA interface and the SMA interface. The concept related to the labels is also a little bit different. The SDA interface could be changed a little bit to have the same functionality as MDM. It is easier to create smart labels in MDM than in SDA. 

It can also be improved in terms of the consumption of resources or the size of the virtual machine. Currently, we are using a lot of memory and CPU power, and these can be reduced, but it is not a big deal.

I have been using KACE for more than 10 years. I have so far handled 600 implementations of K1000 and K2000 in Brazil and Latin America. I have delivered training for more than 5,000 hours.

In 2010 or 2011, I was trained at KACE headquarters in the USA, and after that, I was in charge of supporting customers in Brazil. I helped them with project implementations, training, and quick starts. In 2016, I joined Dell, and I was in charge of all services related to KACE in Brazil and Latin America. In our company, we started using KACE four years ago.

It is very stable, but your infrastructure should meet the requirements for stability. To have stability, you need to meet all the requirements. You need static file systems. If you are using dynamic file systems on the Hyper-V or VM, you might have some issues with stability. You also need to take care of certain things related to the network.

If you have met all requirements and you have 100% compatibility as per the compatibility matrix, it is very stable. If you miss something, you can get into trouble. 

We have their Premier Support because it is very important to have very fast support. I would rate them a nine out of 10. Sometimes, when you have a new hire or a new technician, they don't understand everything before denying some requests. They need to be more flexible.

It is not complex. It is easy, but you need to have knowledge of various concepts, such as smart labels. It is important. Otherwise, it won't be so easy. To make it easier and more user-friendly, they can provide some tips in the UI during the configuration.

Its ease of use has helped in getting an ROI in a very short time. We sell KACE as a service, and we got our ROI within three months.   

I would rate it a nine out of 10. It could be improved a little bit more. 

We use Quest KACE Systems Management for everything. It does everything from soup to nuts. It does inventory control, and not just of computers that check; we also do inventory of other hard IT assets, like big-screen monitors, printers, laptops, et cetera.

We also use it for software inventory, license inventory, and for server management. We use it for end-user workstation patching, for Windows and Dell EMC patches, as well as other critical software updates, such as Adobe Acrobat. 

In addition, we use it for ticket queues and ticket management. We've got queues for multiple departments on this machine, including our people services queue, facilities, IT, and web development queues. It's our ticket system. 

We also push out software and software updates with it all the time. 

Up until about a month ago, it was on-prem, but we just migrated up to Azure in the cloud.

The ease of use has definitely affected the time-to value of the solution for us. We're not having to put up deployment servers or patch-management servers. My staff is not having to run from machine to machine to do software installations. That can be automated this way. We also don't have to have a separate ticket queue system. We're saving money left and right by all of these features being well implemented and integrated into this one solution.

The single pane of glass has everything you need for endpoint management of all devices. You have your main pane and you have tabs on the left. If you say, "I want to do software distribution," you click on that tab and you do your work. If you want to do inventory, you click on that tab and you do your stuff there. Not having to jump from screen to screen makes things a bit faster, a bit more efficient, and it saves a bit of time. I don't have to change screens to find multiple bits of information. It has a well-designed web app as well. If I need to, I can have multiple tabs open for viewing different panes. If I need to compare two machines, I can just open two tabs and compare them.

Looking back, it has saved me, personally, a good 10 hours per week, out of 40. That's significant. As far as my team is concerned, with four people working a total of 160 hours per week, KACE has saved them close to a third of that time by not having to jump from system to system to get the information they need.

It has also definitely increased IT productivity. We can take on more tickets and we can take on more problems from other people. We can work towards higher-end solutions and not worry about tripping over the system that does the implementations.

All of the use cases I mentioned are among its most valuable features. It's central to our IT management and our IT systems. Without this solution, we would be dead in the water. The most critical are the ticket queues, because so many departments rely on them, and patch management/software distribution.

It's also extremely easy to use. The documentation could be perhaps a little bit smoother in places. It can be a little choppy. But as far as being able to go into the machine and work with it goes, once you get the hang of it, it's simple. It is a very simple interface. That said, I've been using it since 1990-something, so I'm really used to it.

The updating and configuring to get things the way you need them in your environment are not as convenient as in some solutions. For example, Microsoft Windows has group policies, which are fine if all your machines are on the same network all the time. But in these wonderful days of COVID, where everybody's working remotely, nobody is in the office all the time. And certainly, the entire office is not on-site anymore with all computers on-site. That means that group policies fall apart. The KACE solution has had to step in and fill that niche for us.

The problem is that it's harder to directly emulate a lot of the stuff that the group policies do, using the KACE solution. With regular group policies, you just specify the various settings you want to change on the workstations, and then you specify the workstations and—while it's kind of an ugly mess—it does it. Whereas on KACE, you really have to know what you're doing with scripting to effectively script those exact same changes.

I would also like to see more convenient settings for Windows and, possibly, Mac systems, more in line with Windows Group Policies. I'd like that kind of granularity with that kind of ease of access and ease of control. Group policies are out the window now with everybody working remotely. I don't personally want to spend the time or effort investing in Microsoft Intune, when the KACE solution is perfectly capable of doing all of those things.

I've been using the KACE SMA, which was previously called the KBOX 1000, since the 1990s; pretty much since version 1 came out.

It's rock-solid. I've never had a stability problem with KACE.

I've never really had to scale it. It does have scalability built-in and I could have multiple repositories across the nation connected to this one machine if I wanted to. But I haven't had to because that use case doesn't make sense for us.

But we're always looking to utilize it more. We first look to KACE when evaluating any solution that might require third-party involvement. We ask ourselves if KACE can do it.

We use their regular tech support and that tech support is beyond savvy. Their tech support is stellar. They're instantly responsive and they know their stuff. They know exactly what they're doing, and I've thrown some weird questions at them, at some really weird times of day. The person I get on the other end has always said, "Yeah. No problem. Hang on a sec. Here's your answer."

I don't have to explain something three times to 18 different people. I really just explain it once, usually over a chat session. They'll tell me, "Oh, well look at this, and look at this, and try those out. If those don't work, try this." It's great. I wish I had that kind of tech support with other vendors.

Positive

The move to Azure has been as smooth as silk. It's been great. Once we figured it out, it only took about an hour to an hour and a half. But there were some steps along the way that weren't terribly clear, meaning it ended up taking about five or six hours.

The things that made it complicated were the types of things that you can't really correct while you're in the middle of doing a migration. The machine's IP address was hard-coded into the configuration. That may be great, but you can't unset that when you're in the middle of the migration. We had already started to migrate the data over and then realized, "Oh, once it comes up, it's going to have a fixed IP address on a completely different subnet. It's not going to know where it is or how to get to it, and we're not going to be able to get to it. So we had to back out the entire thing and start over again with an unspecified IP. There were similar technical glitches, little things like that. If we had thought about them a little bit beforehand, or if there were documentation saying, "Hey, you might want to de-provision the IP address before you do this," we would have been in better shape.

I tend to do most of the maintenance on it. A colleague/subordinate of mine does it sometimes as well. Maintenance consists of making sure the backup files get put somewhere that is reliably safe, and applying patches when it needs them. But the patches are infrequent, and Quest is addressing automated backups in the next release. So soon, that won't even be an issue.

Return on investment will probably take a good year or two, simply because there's a lot of ramp-up. While you can get the system up and running in a day, you're not going to have enough useful data and you will not have had time to fully ramp up all of the features of the machine within that day.

For example, if you do a lot of patch management, you have to have your complete inventory of machines in there to see what patches are necessary and to tell the system, "I want everybody to be running these patches, not those patches." So there is a lot of stuff that you need to get in there, and that takes time and experience.

Licensing is very straightforward. They don't overcomplicate it. This is not a Cisco product where you have to have 30 different licenses just to open the box. It's pretty much set-and-forget. You pay an annual license. Licensing is based, in part, on number of seats, but they're very flexible and they're willing to work with you. 

The cost is in the mid to upper range, but the ROI exceeds the outside cost, especially once you've had the system for a while. And that's all the more true since they now offer it as a cloud-based solution. You can either buy their cloud-based solution or you can host it on your own cloud solution, which is what we've chosen to do because we already own the license for it.

If you already own the license for it, it doesn't matter if you're using their old hardware or if you want to migrate your stuff up to the cloud—you own the license. If you want to migrate up to the cloud, they say, "Yeah, no problem. Here's a preconfigured image with all the software installed on it already. All you have to do is create the environment for it in Azure, move this in there and then move your backups, your data, from your old system to this one." Provided you don't mess yourself up like we did a few times, it just flows right in.

In my last company, I was the one who purchased KACE. I was the one who reviewed it, vetted it, and brought it in to replace something like six or seven different technologies that were all fighting with each other.

Back in the 1990s, I was reviewing other products, to get away from these technologies I was fighting with. This solution popped up that does soup to nuts. It does everything. I thought, "Okay, that makes me nervous. Jack of all trades, master of none." But I got a review unit in and it actually did what I wanted it to do, and it didn't mess with me. It didn't fight me every step of the way.

I've had to use competitive solutions for other vendors. I used ServiceNow for a long time, which is a solution I detest. It has a nonsensical, overcomplicated interface, it's difficult to use, difficult to manage, and doesn't do half the stuff that I want it to do. It doesn't integrate or scale well. ServiceNow is a disaster, as far as I'm concerned.

I've used Jira, which is so-so. I'm not a big fan of Jira, but I think pretty much everybody has a love-hate relationship with it. I do still use that with one of our vendors.

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, and have it really up and running in a day, easily. The other solutions are so complex, overcomplicated, and overwrought that it takes forever.

Training users on how to use KACE is really simple. "See the big button that says 'File a Ticket'? That's the one you click." And they get that. The other systems are not necessarily that straightforward. KACE is also eminently configurable. If I don't like the terminology on a certain screen for a particular department, I can change it. I can make the people services queue look distinctly different from the IT queue, and have it behave differently. There is so much that this solution does that I just absolutely adore.

With KACE's inventory management, I can tell whose machines are getting patched regularly and whose machines are not getting patched regularly, and I can actually remedy that. I can tell who is running older versions of software and I can remedy that quickly, as well. I can push out new versions of antiviral software, security software, or web browsers. I can push out pretty much any piece of software I choose, without a lot of hassle. It's actually very straightforward, provided that the software conforms to industry norms for software distribution, with standard MSIs and standard DMGs.

Compliance is not really a big deal for us. We're not beholden to audits and the like. But if we were, KACE would certainly help. In my last company, I was beholden to audits, and I used the reporting and compliance management frequently. All the other features I mentioned are important for compliance, because you can't do compliance management without them. You can't hold yourself liable for software licensing if you don't have the software licensing built into the system and no way to reconcile it. The same is true for hardware and hardware licensing, as well as patch management. It's all tied together.

On a scale of one to 10, KACE goes up to 11.

The use case is for organization server patching, and we also use the asset management in a smaller capacity.

For what I use it for, the solution provides a single pane of glass with everything I need for endpoint management of all devices. For the most part, it lowers the amount of time required for manual intervention. It gives me more time to work on other projects instead of consistently worrying about patching. Per week or per month, it's saving me a good five hours.

One of the most valuable features is that it natively patches third-party applications and not just a core operating system.

It's relatively easy to use and most of it is pretty intuitive. They've made things a little more involved now with the agent token that needs to be used. That means installing it from a server, from the share, is not quite as simple as it used to be, but once you know how to do it, and that it's something that has to occur, it's really not a problem.

It enables IT asset management, compliance, software asset management, mobile device management, and patch management, although we don't utilize the MDM. That's mainly due to our security requirements. But the IT asset tracking is a big segment.

And the software asset management has been a big help, even when it comes to license true-ups. I can use it to find out how many Tivoli we have, and boom, there's the number. Even if it's reporting a number that might be a little higher than what it actually is, because it's looking for one component, it gives you a good first first-hand look. As a result, we know there's something out there and this confirms we've got five of them. And you can actually click on the information about the software and it shows, for example, that these five servers are where it's being reported. If you really want, you can log in to them and validate. We have used that quite a bit.

Another segment that has really helped out is where you go in and actually use the distributions. We might have a situation where we need something installed on all 237 servers by tomorrow. I'll just go in and do a managed installation and have KACE push it out. So far, that's been pretty successful. I wish it had a little bit more ability to allow me to put something in there without saying, "Okay, we're already aware of this software. What file do you want to use?" It would be nice if it let me type it in and prompted me, when needed, saying, "We've already found that. Do you want to use this one? Yes or no?" But it hasn't kept me from accomplishing what I intended. Overall, the distribution is a pretty nice feature.

My biggest complaint is that almost every time they send out a new version, it fixes something and breaks another. Something that wasn't working in the last version now works, but something else stops; or they'll remove some dashboard that I really found to be nice and replace it with something totally different that I could care less about.

Another example of this would be that there is a set of agents where the communication between the agents and KACE is very consistent, and the patch numbers are very good. And then there will be a new agent which they say fixes this, this, and this. But then, all of a sudden, my patch numbers go down and the communication isn't as good, or they're timing-out more.

An additional instance of this is that it used to be, when you were patching, you would see how many succeeded and how many failed. You would also see which patches had failed and had reached the maximum number of attempts. Connected with that, there used to be a "reset tries" feature and that was nice because you could actually reset the attempts and KACE would try those patches the next time. Now, although "reset tries," is still there, it's grayed out. It doesn't function.

It affects usability because every time you upgrade, you don't really know what you may be getting yourself into. I wish they'd be a little more consistent and make sure it's only getting better, rather than their saying, "We had 15 known issues in the last version. In this new version, we're offering these new things, but we've still got 15 known issues."

The installs are generally very easy. You just say, "Okay, go ahead, upgrade," and they seem to run fairly smoothly with no problems. It's just that after you've done them, you have to see what is working and what's not working.

I have been using Quest KACE Systems Management for five years.

On the whole, the stability is good. Once it's up and running, it just pretty much runs. There aren't really system crashes or anything of that nature. It's a solid system that really does not encounter failures of the system itself.

Scalability is available. I have not experimented much with some of the options. For example, you can have a system at this site and have another site that doesn't have an entire KACE, but just a file share where KACE can put patches as well. Instead of servers at that site going all the way to your primary site, they just pull the patches from that local repository. Theoretically, that helps. So it can be scalable if you so choose.

In our environment we manage 237 servers. 

Their technical support is good. They're very prompt. Quest has been very quick in responding to any support cases or questions. And most of the time, the answer is very straightforward and easily executed or easily understood.

Positive

We did use something that KACE replaced, but I don't even remember what it was.

SCCM is what we use for workstations, but not for server patching. We do have WSUS (Windows Server Update Services) running as a backup in case we want to use Windows Update. We do have other options available, but for servers, KACE is the primary patching system.

I was involved in the initial setup and I found it to be relatively easy. It was pretty intuitive and straightforward.

Bringing it online to the point that I could log in took 45 minutes to an hour, and that included making sure I had DNS records so that the URL was resolving, and putting in the IPS and gateways, et cetera. All of a sudden, boom, it was up and running. 

After that, it was a matter of making sure that patches are actually downloading properly, and that the agent installs are checking in and everything is working properly. So getting it all tuned and set the way we wanted took two or three months, but the initial "it's technically functioning" was just two or three days.

We have realized a return on our investment with the solution. We are more stringent than the NSA as far as security goes. We run weekly security scans on our systems and we're consistently bringing in third-party organizations to do red-team tests where they'll try to hack in and do a lot of things to test us. Since Quest KACE Systems Management patches not just the operating system, but can also patch third-party things like Java and Wireshark if an update is detected, overall it handles everything that's detected. If possible, it will attempt to patch it.

The cost of KACE has been relatively low compared to other systems. Even if those systems have the same cost, they do not do as much of the third-party patching that KACE natively does. With a cost of less than $4,500 a year, it's been very good.

The pricing model is fair and fine. I wouldn't change anything about that.

We looked at SCCM and Qualys.

One of the reasons we went with KACE was cost. 

Another was that it patches third-party applications natively. Certain systems tend to need native operating system patching only. You can download something like a Java update and then "package it" for installation. But with KACE you can say, "If you find it and it's critical, recommended, not superseded, and it's detected on our system, download it and patch it." It's nice that it's doing third-party apps and not just the operating system.

If you're considering KACE for a large environment, come up with smart labels and patching schedules that are going to fit the number of systems that you have. The scheduling really comes into play, especially now with Windows having bundled patches. As a result, you're downloading a 1 or 1.2-gigabyte file to update the server, versus between three and seven 2 or 3 or 5 megabyte files. When there were multiple files, even if two of them didn't get uploaded, the other three did. If this one large file times out, it just does not patch. So scheduling the time to stage those and deploy on a different day is really important.

I wish we had the ability to use the mobile asset tracking and bar coding. Those are things that have been a real void in our organization. At least we are utilizing KACE for the servers and we manually input barcodes or serial numbers. Having the option to use a KACE app to input that information is nice and would save a lot of time. 

Our main purpose is to image the computers we have on campus, using the Systems Deployment Appliance. After we get that set up, our second purpose is to use the Systems Management Appliance to keep an inventory of, and send scripts to, all the computers that we have on campus.

KACE has definitely significantly affected the time it takes to solve problems. In the past, we were spending way too much time solving minor issues, whereas with KACE we can do it on the fly. I'm solving problems quickly, in as little as 15 minutes, and then we're able to push out the resolution across campus. In the past, even if we had figured out something that quickly, it would still have taken us weeks at a time to push everything out.

As far as PCs go, and running Windows, the solution handles everything. I even have a Linux machine that I've imaged with KACE. I don't handle the Mac side of devices but I know there was a different solution that our Mac guy has used. It definitely makes it easier for us to keep inventory because, without it, our environment would be the Wild West. It would just be impossible to keep track of everything. The way I have it set up—and especially recently with COVID, we've had lots of people taking computers off-campus—I'm still able to keep everything together, even though we have computers all over the place. If we didn't have something like this, that would be an impossible task.

In terms of the amount of time KACE saves us, it's weeks of work on a monthly basis. We're able to do things in a day that used to take us about a month to do. It has also increased IT productivity because it takes less manpower to get the same amount of work done. Once a month, a classroom would go down, with some 25 computers in it. We would have to send a group of people out to take care of it. Now, we can do that work in a day, with one person. The other people who used to have to take care of that kind of issue can do other things that we need done.

The most valuable feature is the imaging of computers through the SDA. In the past, someone actually put images on CDs and walked around campus to image all the computers. We have around 3,000 computers on campus, and doing that with one disk, over and over, was very time-consuming. Being able to do that quickly is important because, on our academic side, we are re-imaging computers every summer, so that they have all the current updates. That means installing all the software on what amounts to about 1,500 computers. Being able to do that so quickly with the SDA, and to then use the SMA for reinstalling software, has been huge for our productivity.

It provides us with asset management, compliance, software asset management, mobile device management to an extent, and patch management. The combination of these abilities is extremely important. I'm able to download new patches pretty quickly and I send them out every week to all the computers on campus. That means we're constantly keeping everything up to date, and that helps, especially with the number of threats out there. Having everything up to date and being able to do it as quickly as we can is extremely important.

When I first started using the SDA, I used their default system image setup. But I do have a custom image that I created myself and, over time, I've been gradually going in that direction. It just took me some time to figure it out, but now that I have it figured out, it's super simple for me to set everything up the way I want it. It's been a great help to get everything set up that way for my environment. Obviously, everybody's environment is going to be different.

We also use the MDM functionality a little bit. We don't have any Android devices in our environment, but we do have a bunch of iPads that we were using the MDM for. It was easy to get those endpoints into the MDM for asset management. Originally, it was really easy to image them with KACE and then push all the software to those devices, even the iPads. But I think Apple is trying to push MDMs out of their environment. They want everything done the way they decide.

It's pretty easy to use. I didn't have too many issues in terms of setting everything up; that was pretty intuitive. From time to time there are hiccups with updates and I've had to contact their tech support. Something like that probably happens once a year. But overall, it's very easy to use.

Also, it took a little bit of time to figure out how to use the KACE Service Desk. I like the way that I'm able to customize it. But when it comes to how our techs are able to use it, it's not as functional as our current solution, which is BMC FootPrints Service Desk. I would like it to replace our current solution, and the only reason I haven't replaced it is that there's more functionality in our current solution.

I have been using KACE Systems Management for about five years.

It seems pretty stable. I haven't really had any issues, except for one time, when I was building the KACE boot environment. They had to add a hot-fix to it but that happened once in the last five years.

It's being used on every single computer that we have on campus, and we use it every single day, because we're always imaging or re-imaging computers. 

As of now, there is no plan to increase our use, but I would imagine that as things come back to normal, if we have more students coming to campus, we will add more computers and we will increase our use at that time.

Their technical support has been good so far. If there's an emergency, something that we need fixed right away, they usually get back to us within an hour. They've been very helpful.

We did not have a previous solution.

The initial setup seemed complex at first. But as I spent more time with it, it was actually pretty easy to set it up. It is one of those things that, when you look at it, you realize there are so many things that you can do with it. It was a little overwhelming. But it didn't take that long to get the hang of everything and get into it. On a scale of one to 10, it was about a five as far as complexity goes.

It took a month or two to deploy. It took a little bit of time to get it set up the way that we wanted it. But now that we have it set up, it has been relatively easy to maintain that setup. The more I work with it, the easier it gets when I have to make a major change.

As for preparation ahead of setup, we just had to set up a server for it to be installed on. There wasn't much preparation.

I do most of the main maintenance on it and I have one other person who helps me from time to time. There isn't a lot of work there.

We used a reseller to help with the deployment. I talked with them a little and didn't have any issues with them.

Don't scale up too quickly, because there was a period of time where we bought a bunch of licenses but we weren't using that many. When we finally needed more licenses, we lucked into a time when they had a discount on licenses, so we bought more at that time. So hold off for those times when the cost comes down a little bit.

There were a few options out there that had some of the things we were looking for, such as the SDA and SMA, but KACE had more of what we were looking for. Some solutions had half of it and some others had the other half, but as far as having all of it goes, KACE was the best option.

As far as the SDA goes, definitely look at the options for customizing your own images. I had problems with my images as far as the built-in system imaging went. But once I switched over to customizing my own images, I had fewer issues with imaging computers. And when it comes to the SMA, definitely take advantage of asset management and its scripting capabilities. They have significantly helped me and our organization.

It is a virtual device. We use it for our everyday systems management and software deployment. It is implemented on all of our devices as an inventory and asset management tracking system. Our help desk system is utilized through it, and we do software distribution and deployments from it. We do all of those things on a daily basis.

We just updated to the beta version 12 on our test prep unit. We're on 11.1 on our active production device.

It has been very helpful in terms of management. The speed at which we're able to address help tickets is invaluable. We are able to maintain a history of problems and reference that information. That's been a huge piece.

Software distribution was what we initially purchased the product for, and it immediately paid for itself in time saved. We were looking to implement a new version of Office at the time, and we were anticipating a 6 to 12 weeks process to do the upgrade on all of our machines. With the device, we were able to complete that process in under a week. We saved a huge amount of time. At the time, I was the only tech who would have been doing the job. So, it would have been six weeks or so of my time. It has saved my hourly wage at the time for six weeks. We now have three people. Our roles are all the same. We're all IT technicians.

It has increased IT productivity. It has improved the speed for addressing end-user needs, distributing and updating software, and dealing with software vulnerabilities through patching. We could do these things much faster through the product.

It provides patch management, IT asset management, software asset management, and compliance. It also provides mobile device management, but we don't use it. The combination of all these things is really important for us. The patch management would be top of the list of those items. Asset management would be second, and software asset management would be third on that list. Compliance would be the last one.

It is really good for updating and configuring everything the way we need it to be in our environment. On a scale of one to ten, it is about an eight or a nine.

Its System Deployment Appliance (SDA) is wonderful for automating deployments. It is very quick and fairly easy to move forward with deployments. It makes deployments much smoother and quicker.

Pretty much all of the features are valuable. The inventory is very helpful to be able to keep track of our devices. The deployments make it easy to deploy new software packages or upgrade packages. The help desk is also a great tool for tracking problems and problem tickets.

It is very easy to set up and very easy to use on a daily basis. There is a lot of stuff to learn in terms of how do you do something and the things that it can do. It is just a matter of taking the time to learn all the functionalities and all of the nuances of how to use it, but it is pretty intuitive to use.

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 end-user training could also be better. I did talk to them the other day at a seminar about the training availability for end-users.

I believe we've been using KACE since 2003.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. We've grown, and we've probably doubled our end-point devices since we started using this system. 

In terms of end-users, we've got about 1,200 system users in the city who use the help desk. There are 10 or 12 of us in IT that utilize the inventory, asset management, and software distribution side of things for IT management of those end-devices. It is being used very well, and we don't have any plans to increase its usage.

Their support has been really good. We don't need support very often because the system is so stable. It is usually a matter of not knowing how to do something when we end up getting support, but that has been pretty rare.

We did not have anything.

It was really straightforward. It took half a day. Our implementation strategy was to just get it up and running.

We did it with KACE directly.

It paid for itself within the first month we had it. So, the return on investment was incredible.

Their pricing is per end-point device. There is an initial cost for the license for the server, which is pretty low, and then there is a per end-point device license, which is also fairly low. So, the pricing is still reasonable. 

We compared it to Microsoft's SCCM. At the time, that was the only one we compared it to. The SCCM product in our mind was really intended for a large complex environment with thousands or tens of thousands of computers and multiple servers. At the time, we were several hundred computers. So, we were looking for something that was really built around that environment and for use of a smaller entity. Quest KACE was built around that, and it just worked out really well for us. It was a whole lot cheaper, as well.

I would advise just looking at the size of the environment in the end in terms of where you're going to end up. You have to make sense of the environment.

I would also advise others to take the time to learn about the system. There is a lot that it can do. We've had it going on 20 years. There is still stuff that we don't really know how to use or don't utilize to the capacity that we could. That's just because we have never taken the time or had the time to learn all of the pieces and parts and how to do different things within it. My recommendation would be to learn as much as you possibly can out of the box. Learn as much as you can and as quickly as you can to be able to utilize it because you'll never regret it.

From what I have seen, it is hands down a 10 out of 10.

We have several use cases for KACE and a lot of them are related to the helpdesk. For example, they provide assistance with modifying the helpdesk, client distribution, and maybe a tad bit in scripting on how to use it.

I've used the KACE tickets a lot.

This solution provides us with compliance management. We used it for security updates including Windows security, Dell, and other products. Another feature that we use is patch management. In fact, we patch other products all the time using KACE. I have Windows and Dell updates running bi-weekly, whereas other products are done weekly. Microsoft servers are an example of something that we regularly patch.

The combination of the features is important, although I'm just happy that it all works. It's fairly easy to use once you figure it out.

The system helps a lot when it comes to updating and configuring everything the way we need it to be in our environment. In particular, their support engineers are really good, although the system usually configures and updates mostly on its own. 

Price to using KACE, we were using emails. Now that we have a ticketing system, everything is monitored and everything is saved. For example, with the service desk portion, it's a lot easier to track because of the OSV files. They take up a lot of storage and as such, they get stored in archives. This means that it's hard to find those emails, so it's difficult to see what people said. Something we would look for is how we resolved an issue by following steps X, Y, and Z. This information is all available in the description of the ticket and by using KACE, we can find it easily. As far as the service desk operations go, this solution has been A one.

Using this solution saves us lots of time, especially when it comes to performing updates. We only have one on-premises server, and we have somebody that updates it, but prior to using KACE, there were lots of errors that would occur. For example, one update superseded another. Now, it is put on the automated run with a smart ticket and the server is always up to date. I estimate that we're saving at least 40 hours per month, based on the fact that we have 170 computers. It takes a long time to push all of the software updates to every one of them.

When we consider patching and software application updates, our productivity has increased by at least 80%. This has been major for us, especially with COVID and since people started working from home. It's been tougher to manage everybody but with KACE, it's made the job a lot easier. For example, the KACE agent looks at the client and it updates everything automatically.

The system gives us visibility with respect to whether a user is online, or the last time they were online. While online, it also gives us real-time status updates.

The only feature that we aren't using yet is asset management, and that is something that we are working on.

This solution is easy to use. None of it is very difficult, although I had to learn it from the ground up and it wasn't very easy when I first started with it. However, progressively, as I put in tickets and began using the service desk, the Quest help, and the technical support, they showed me how it works. Usually, after they showed me one time, I was able to understand what I needed to do. Eventually, it was really easy to use.

The inventory is really good, where it automatically updates catalogs. When I check on things, it's right there, and it even has zero-day patches. When you fine-tune it and set up the automation, it makes life much easier.

The patch management security is also A one.

It would be nice if the asset management capability was a little more intuitive.

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 remover, the process was pretty much manual.  For example, I have to tell it which and how many licenses we have, and I have to keep updating it. KACE has what they call Smart Labels and they are supposed to automatically detect things, but it seems that they don't detect anything. I put all of the information in, and it still won't do it. It makes you wonder why you're putting the information into the system in the first place.

I have not been able to connect to Active Directory, which is a ticket that I've had open for several months. It looks like the problem may be on our side. I've been working with the firewall team, which is a third-party vendor, and even their developers can't figure it out. Each vendor is pointing fingers at the other. I just want it to work.

I have been using Quest KACE Systems Management for approximately two years.

I like the stability a lot. It doesn't crash. We've had a few hiccups but it's definitely not worse than some of our vendors. The downtime is near 0%. Some of our vendors have a lot of downtime.

Scalability-wise, this product is great.

When we first implemented KACE, we had approximately 80 computers that we needed to install it on. We now have 170 computers.

We will continue to use this solution going forward. Every time we stage a computer, we make sure that we put KACE on it. Once we do that, we pretty much don't have to worry anymore. We're setting up more PCs and we're going to be hitting the 200 mark, probably at the end of the year. We have been hiring a lot of people and I expect it will continue.

There are three people who use KACE but I am the primary one. I'm the only person that makes changes and monitors the system regularly.

The technical support is pretty good but we still have cases pending. There is one case that we have had open for several months and I'm not the happiest about that, but for everything else, the assistance has been pretty spot on. It's hard to complain about the support.

Sometimes, I figure it out myself after opening a ticket but usually, they can get the job done. They are much more responsive than most vendors. I don't know if they have SLAs but if they do, then I would say that they're meeting them. They usually contact me either the day of, if it's early enough, or the next day, which is nice.

If I speak with any one of them, it doesn't matter. I've worked with multiple support engineers from KACE and they all seem to know what they're doing.

Usually, I have to contact them for the higher-level stuff. For example, I didn't know about how security certificates worked because I had never used one before.

The vendor has Premier support available, although we do not use it right now. We haven't looked into it yet but because we're growing and don't have enough IT people, Premier support might be ideal. For example, I have read that they help with VBS scripting, and I don't know it, so that would help me to learn it a little bit faster. Also, they save certain things for Premiere support. I had asked the service desk if I can change the category of a service ticket and they told me that I could, but it was a custom option. For that kind of thing, you need to have Premium support. I plan to call the vendor and get a quote for the service. That said, for everything that's not custom, they help a lot.

Overall, they're very proficient and they're very knowledgeable about the product.

We were using Datto RMM before, and KACE is much easier to use. I wasn't the most familiar with the old solution but with KACE, I can do things beyond monitoring. For example, I can do distributions or use security updates. With Datto, I basically used it to see what PC people were on.

Before I was hired, an IT company used to manage our infrastructure and they were the ones using Datto. We moved away from the IT company, which is why we switched.

We have not used any of the freeware products that are available or tried SCCM to achieve the same functionality.

It was definitely complex but that is because I'd never seen anything like it before. It wouldn't be a fair assessment to say that it was the most difficult thing, but it was a lot of information and I'd never used smart labels before. I was very confused at the beginning.

But, after I put in tickets, they did take the time to go back over it with me. After they showed me maybe once or twice, I understood what a smart label does. From that point on, it was very easy to create smart labels and automate the system.

It takes perhaps five minutes to install KACE on one computer. The longest part is pulling it down from the server. Once it's copied to the local machine, it only takes a minute or 90 seconds to install.

We completed the deployment in-house.

The pricing is great. It's billed annually and it's very reasonable.

My manager was already very familiar with this solution, which is why it was chosen. We didn't evaluate other options.

I have seen other monitoring tools that you use with a PC, where they are part of the assets. With this one, you have to run a custom script and you have to do a lot of custom stuff. When you do custom work, you have to pay more money, obviously. It means that there is an extra cost but other than that, it's pretty good.

KACE provides capabilities for mobile device management, although we don't use the feature. We also don't really use the monitoring system at this point.

My advice for anybody who is looking to implement KACE is that it's fairly easy to use and once you learn it, it's a very simple product. It's not simple in function, but the ease of use is there and you can very quickly learn what you need to do to get things done.

Also, if you know a little bit more about VBS, you get stuff done a lot quicker. 

Overall, it's a great product, I'm really happy with it, and I feel like it gets the job done.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use this solution for the help desk, but we also utilize the scripting portion of it to automate things that would otherwise take us a long time to do manually. We're just now trying to start using the asset management portion of it as well, tying users to various equipment.

In addition to these things, we use some of the reporting and some of the file synchronization features.

An example of automation is pushing patches out to users. For example, I just finished creating a bunch of patch schedules.

All of the features that this product offers play an important role in our company.

We have a K1000 and it offers a single pane of glass for endpoint management. It would be nice to have a K2000 because it would then include image updates for hard drives, which our version does not. Otherwise, as far as endpoint management is concerned, it is complete.

We have utilized the IT assets but have been largely unsuccessful in using the modules for licensing and warranty.

When it comes to updating and configuring everything the way we need to have it done in our environment, it takes care of 90% of the work. It would be nice if it had a packager for software when we're dealing with executable files because not everything has a managed installer, unfortunately. It means that we have to trick it into doing what we need to do sometimes. For the most part, it does what we require.

The most valuable feature for us is the helpdesk. Just being in the IT industry in general, we have to have something to track what we're doing day in and day out, whether it be a project or end-user support. It helps us keep all that together in one place. The help desk is what everybody in our department uses it for the most.

The scripting is a very valuable feature, as it saves us time on pushing certain things out to the users, such as software and patches. The patches definitely need some help.

When you get to patch management, it's complicated. I have had to call technical support about it several times. The labels can get kind of confusing as well. I know that there are a lot of them and if I spend more time in it I'd probably understand it better, but anytime I have to create a label for something, I just get lost in a rabbit hole.

We tried the licensing a few times, but we never got it to work properly. It's always really buggy. It is a similar situation with the warranty information; it doesn't always pull that information accurately. It would be helpful to have those pieces addressed because we can't use them. It's been a few years since we touched it, so they may have been addressed by now, but every time we updated, we would go and test it and it just wasn't keeping track correctly.

The KACE Go Mobile App crashes a lot, and it always has. I would love to see that get fixed because it's very convenient when it does work properly, but most of the time it does not. This experience is uniform across multiple devices that we've tried over the years. I've read the reviews on the app store and all of the different messages being sent to the developers about how this needs to be fixed, and nothing ever happens. This is an area that could use some improvement, for sure.

It needs to have better Unix crontab options for patch management. We want to have the ability to use expressions because we would like to do our patches every two weeks. As it is now, with the way it's formatted, it won't allow us to do that. Essentially, we need more customization as far as the schedules are concerned.

We had a report where there were some custom fields in KACE, and we would be able to fill those out and utilize them for reporting. In one of the updates, those fields were removed. They were custom-built and they still exist in KACE, but from what I understood from the release notes and from speaking with a support rep, those fields are no longer available in reporting. Without being able to report them, it defeats the whole purpose of having fields there in the first place.

We are still able to do some customization in the reports, but the custom one, two, three, and four fields in the user details are in the appliance, but we can't find them on a table anywhere inside of the database.

Another thing that we would like is to have at least a limited degree of write permissions for the databases. It would make it a lot easier for reporting or even certain things that can't be exported, to have at least some kind of write control to the databases. I understand, as a company, why they don't want to give that ability to some people because of the can of worms that it opens, but it would just be really helpful to be able to automate some things, rather than have to go in and update the stuff field by field.

For example, the help desk configuration, where you have your categories and subcategories, and you can go in there and assign users. We have more than 100 of those line by line. Anytime we get a new help desk person or we make a change to who the owner is of a certain category, we have to go in there and manually set it, each and every one of them, and it takes hours to do.

Essentially, we would like to have more control over it and assume responsibility for problems should they occur. If we break something then it's our own fault.

Since we upgraded to version 10.0, all of our reports are broken. I haven't yet called in about that to find out what the problem is. At this point, we get a bunch of unknowns and question marks whenever we pull a KACE report off of our report server. It may not be a serious issue.

I have been using Quest KACE Systems Management for almost seven years. At the company, it has been in use since before I started.

The stability is great. We've only had it crash once, and that was because of a power outage. Otherwise, it's been awesome.

It used to be slow at some points, but over the years, through the updates, it's gotten a lot more responsive. There are still a few things here and there that take a little bit longer than I think they should to load, but it's not worth mentioning.

For the most part, this product grows with our needs. Back in the day, when we first got it, it was owned by Dell. All of our equipment is from Dell, including our servers and our laptops and computers, our workstations. It fits together very nicely.

All of our end-users use it, if they need to put in a help desk request. As far as the daily use of it, the ins and outs, I'm the administrator and I make sure that all the updates are done. I check on the patch schedules.

In IT, there are three of us. Aside from me, we have an IT admin that uses it to track his projects, as well as some tickets that get assigned to him for reporting requests.

On top of tracking these items, he uses some of the scripting functionality, when it's server-related. As an example, last week, he used it to handle changes that we had made regarding a print server. We changed our print server over to a new one, and he utilized scripting to remove the old server and add the new one. That's what he mainly uses it for.

Our IT director doesn't really use it for much of anything, other than his project-tracking and being able to look at everybody's queues, like mine and my IT admin's, just to see where we're at during the day in more of a supervisory role.

My experience with technical support goes back a long way and the service has changed over time. Overall, it's been a mix, based on luck of the draw. It depends on who I get on the phone. Some people know exactly what they're talking about, and some people don't, and we have to go through several emails or several phone calls just to try and figure it out.

Whenever you call in and you request a callback and the representatives say, "Okay, yes, we'll have a technician call you within the next couple of hours," it's about a 50/50 shot whether they actually call you back or not. Sometimes, they just send you an email instead of calling you. This can be a problem because I have all my emails filtered, so, if I'm looking for something important, I can get to it quicker. However, if I'm expecting a call from KACE support, I'm not going to be looking for that email. That's been a frustrating experience.

Over the years, it's gotten a little better, but it's still the same thing with the emails and the time it takes for them to get back to you. Or, if they just don't happen to be there the next day and somebody else has to take that ticket, that is another thing that can be frustrating. There is room for improvement there, as well.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

It was implemented before I arrived but I have been involved in the upgrade process ever since I joined the company. It is straightforward most of the time but there can be some complexity and it can vary. For example, getting the backups done can be complex, as can things be when changing from version to version. However, for the most part, it has been as easy as just pressing a button and doing an update.

I would say that overall, it is 75% straightforward.

The help desk is super simple to use and we saw our return on investment a long time ago, just in man hours alone.

We used to use a spreadsheet to track all of the things that came through IT, and that is cumbersome. It takes 20 times longer to do. You have to make sure that somebody else doesn't have the spreadsheet open. There are only so many ways that you can put in different columns and rows to get all the information you need, especially when you have to do updates. It was really clumsy the way it was done in Excel.

Another example of where it saves us time is with the scripting, whenever we have to do an update to our transportation management system. It is the biggest piece of software that we have, it's the most complex, and there's a lot of moving pieces to it. We used to actually have to go to each individual computer in the company, of which there are 100 or more, and manually update the different pieces. Now, we can do it with the click of a button in scripting, and then just go around to the few people that it may not have hit properly and manually do it there. It saves a lot of time.

We pay annually for technical support.

I looked at Spiceworks at one point just to see what their solution was like. We didn't fully implement it. Rather, I added a couple of computers on it. It was mostly for watching the network and I didn't evaluate it to the point where I could compare it with KACE.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to be ready for a lot to come at you at once because it does so many things. It's a blessing and a curse at the same time. Also, if you're going to go with a solution from KACE, I would suggest the K2000 rather than the K1000, just because it has more.

We do not plan on changing solutions anytime soon.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

My company had bought some new machines. We used the tool to do some basic settings to ship every machine the same way and undertake the Windows deployment. We did the scripted installation. The tool helped us deploy custom software for specific departments. We also did Windows updates with the product. 

We like the tool's most features. It is a straightforward tool that is easy to use. 

We had issues with the tool's support. We are a Dutch firm and everything has to be in Dutch. We were not able to do the alerts. You were required to tweak them a lot to get them in the language that you preferred. The solution's support depended on the person that you got online. Sometimes, the response was fast and other times you needed to wait a long time. The support also depended on the levels of support that you had requested. 

I have been working with the solution for 10-15 years. 

I would rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

The tool is perfectly scalable. 

When we setup the product, a technical engineer from Dell supported us. I am not sure if there is the same level of support these days. 

The product is reasonably priced. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. I find the product very useful and helpful. The tool has everything like Mobile Device Management that is needed to service a company. The tool has communities where you can seek help. You can visit their support site for technical support. You can also avail support through settings. 

We have used it as a help-desk ticketing system, a software deployment platform, a patch management platform, and a hardware inventory platform.

KACE is incredibly wide in terms of what it will do for you. In certain cases, it's too much for my small businesses. Most of the companies that I support are anywhere from ten to fifty people. Whereas, KACE is such a large piece of software. It has its advantages as well as disadvantages for my businesses. It's just too big.

I think KACE could be designed a little bit more intuitively in terms of administration. Their knowledge-based articles are very good. But one of the things Microsoft does well is that they bake in a lot of the instructions and make the UI design a little bit more intuitive. So if you're flowing through something, the need to go back to the manual with Microsoft and it is not as heavy as it is with KACE. It is not necessarily always a good thing, but I would say KACE feels like an old-school piece of software. You need to make sure you've got the manual open while you're utilizing it.

Now I am trying to get the right size solution for my small businesses.

I have been using this solution for around eighteen months, probably. We just upgraded to version thirteen from eleven.

They are nice and stable. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I can't say I have had many experiences in making it scalable. With my businesses, I have never had to grow from fifty to a thousand employees.

I have used their technical support before. They are good. You pay a lot of money for their support and updates, but they do assist you when necessary. I have had positive experiences with them.

For the size of the company that I typically support, it's hard for me to say yes. I think I'm trying to kill a fly with a shotgun while utilizing KACE.

Coming from a small business standpoint, they're really expensive for the number of users. But that's not necessarily a knock against them. They're producing a piece of software for a particular segment. I just do not think they necessarily designed their virtual appliance and their support for a ten-person company. They are expensive, but are they unjustifiably expensive? I can't say that.

In my opinion, what KACE does better than Intune is third-party patch management. I think that Microsoft Intune and KACE both have the same technical functionality. But Microsoft Intune takes quite a bit of scripting in third-party management. Intune is always a lot cheaper and offers a lot of their packages as well. You have to consider what you need and what you are paying for. I would say that's the big difference between the two so far for my particular use.

Do a lot of research and make sure it fits your use case. If you're a small business, the likelihood of it being worth it to you in my opinion is minimal. If you've got a large environment where you can dedicate technical resources for managing the KACE system, onboarding and offboarding users monthly, and supporting a good number of devices and applications then maybe it works. But for a small business, is the juice worth the squeeze? I don't know.

I would like to rate the solution nine out of ten.