ManageEngine Endpoint Central Reviews

We do patch management and are enabling this service portal. Users can interact with IT in order to download and install the applications. We also push out software to various departments. It's mainly used for patch management. We tend to test and monitor patches. 

The patch management policies are great. We can handle patches that are highly critical, and it makes handling patch deployment very simple. 

Customization is very easy. 

The dashboard has been very useful. 

It is stable.

The solution is scalable. 

We'd like more compatibility for Mac in the future. That way, we wouldn't need to use two tools for different computers. 

The support could be faster. 

It was a bit expensive. 

We just finished a POC, and we are onboarding the solution right now.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable and the performance is good. 

It is scalable. 

We have 1,000 or more people using the solution. 

The support isn't as good as it could be. We need it to be better. When we send requests, we find it takes too much time. 

I handle technical support for clients, and I troubleshoot where I can. I tend to go through documentation and resolve what I can. Otherwise, I have to reach out to Microsoft, and there can sometimes be a delay in response. 

The initial setup is easy. It's not overly complex. 

Currently, we are using an identity manager like JumpCloud. We are pushing via JumpCloud. If there is a new user, I have already created the groups, and I can just add them in. It's pretty simple. 

The cost of licensing is paid yearly. 

The price is a bit expensive. However, it's not too bad compared to the market.

There are some extra costs as well. If you go for the standard enterprise plan, not many features are covered. You need to trade up to bigger editions that offer more features. 

I am an implementor and admin. 

We have it on-premises and on the cloud as well.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. 

The solution is used predominantly for our service desk and IT uses it for capturing issues from our users.

The solution has a lot of the features we need and we are looking forward to taking advantage of them after a little bit of training. 

It seems to be pretty straightforward in terms of ease of use. The user interface is good.

We don't have any issues with the pricing. 

The solution is stable.

The product can scale.

The team I've currently got is not using it particularly well, due to the fact that they don't know how to use it particularly well. They've not done any training and so on. There are lots of things that need to be done. Hence, why I was looking to whether it's a good product or not, which I think it is. It's a good enough product, yet in terms of the team, they just don't know what to do. I don't know how good it's going to be. That said, it looks like it's going to be perfect for what we want; it just needs to be matured further.

I am an interim contract head of IT for the Commission, and the company I work with has been using it for about two years. I wanted to see what other potential solutions there might be out there, and also to see how it stacks up against others. I've only been using it for about six months, however, I was looking at the competitors as well.

The stability is good. Once we get going with it, and we get the partners to help us develop it further, it'll be absolutely perfect.

The scalability seems to be okay.

I have no comments in regards to technical support. I've never called them.

I did not previously use a different solution.

I was not around for the initial implementation and therefore cannot speak to how easy or difficult the process was. 

It is my understanding that the company had third-party support to do the implementation.

The cost of the solution is reasonable. 

I have been actively evaluating other solutions. 

We are using a previous version of the solution. It's not the latest version. 

The most important thing, when you're looking at any product, is to make sure you've clearly defined what you're trying to achieve and do, and then go through what it can and can't do for you to make sure you get a good fit. That's the advice I'd give to anyone considering implementing it. 

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I've been pleased with its potential capabilities so far. 

My primary use case is for operating system imaging and deployment. We also use it for software deployment, automatic software updates, and computer remote assistance.

Desktop Central allows us to manage everything related to computing equipment including mobile devices and software licenses in a centralized place.

All of Desktop Central's features are valuable, especially its simplicity.

The team should work on improving the stability, particularly with massive patches deployment, clients are not 100% getting patches and the information provided by the system does not help; more detailed report would be very useful. ManageEngine should provide a periodic health checks for licensed customers; can be a sharing for best practices, tips or recommendation of critical patches or features the customer may have missed.

I've been using Desktop Central for two years.

This solution is scalable.

Excellent technical support, the team is very supportive and responsive to all issues.

Positive

I previously used Microsoft SCCM, but it was difficult to deploy, while Desktop Central is more flexible and user-friendly.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I implemented it by myself, which took two days.

We pay 40,000 per year for Desktop Central, ready to manage any size of IT computing environment without having to pay additional fees.

Desktop Central is easy to deploy, manage, and integrate with other ManageEngine products. I would recommend it to anyone managing a computing environment - it's a complete product for all sizes of enterprise, and it's ready to be deployed straight out of the box. I would score it as nine out of ten.

I used it about six months ago. We implemented it in the last company I worked with. We were using it for patching, rolling out images, and other similar things.

We were using the most recent version.

I like being able to image over the network. That's a nice feature that it has. Patch management is pretty decent on it as well.

The only problem with it is that the setup isn't very intuitive. I know that they just upgraded the product to make it a little bit easier to use, but compared to some of the other platforms, it is not easy to configure it, set it up, and get it running. However, once you have set it up and got it running, it runs great.

Once it was set up and running, there were no issues with it. It seems to run fairly well.

It is scalable. I was the admin for this system, and we probably had over a thousand end-users. I was the only one who knew how to use it at the time.

Their tech support was pretty good. For any issues we had, they'd come in and work with us and get them resolved pretty quickly.

Its setup isn't very intuitive.

We had perpetual licenses. The cost was around 36,000, and then you'd have the yearly maintenance fee of 2,000 or 3,000.

They have a service where they come in and configure it or do the setup for you for a price. I don't remember the price, but it was pretty reasonable. If you're not familiar with the platform, that might be a good thing to go with, especially if you don't want to go in and do the ifs and buts trying to set it up. It would be a lot easier if you had them come and set it up for you. With all the alerting and everything else that you have to set up with it, it takes a minute to get it up and running and have everything the way you wanted.

I'd give it an eight out of 10. I was really happy with it.

We deployed ManageEngine Desktop Central mainly for the patching of systems. Additionally, we have used it extensively for doing ad hoc software deployments, making changes to systems, such as if we need to deploy a registry fix. The solution also allows us to have local repositories. When we do a deployment at a local operation, everything is deployed locally from within that operation. We do not have to use the network to receive anything.

We do not use it for remote assistance very much, and the reason is we use ScreenConnect. I know that the Desktop Central remote control works. The other thing that we use Desktop Central is to receive quick access via the command line. It's very convenient that we can open a command prompt on a remote host.

We have seen a lot of benefits in reporting, we are able to pull a lot of information. For example, we can go ahead and pull out a report saying how many Windows 11 machines are in the organization, how many machines are missing patches that are older than 60 days, and how many machines have a specific version of the software.

ManageEngine Desktop Central automatically alerts you if there are newer releases or updates. You do not have to go to their website and check.

Your agents or your assets that are managed by ManageEngine Desktop Central, if you have a relay server, the agents will work over the internet. If there is an asset, then there is some vulnerability. As long as it's powered on and connected to the internet, it doesn't need to be on the corporate-wide area network. As long as it's on the internet, you can go ahead and manage it.

ManageEngine Desktop Central should keep up with some of the features that other major vendors are providing, such as Microsoft. 

If this solution could include the MDM component, then it would be a very strong contender with the other competitors.

The OS deployment of the solution could improve, I tested it before, and it was weak.

I have been using ManageEngine Desktop Central for approximately four years.

The stability of ManageEngine Desktop Central could improve. We have found that at times it can become a bit unstable. We have had issues with that in the past, but not much lately. 

The performance of the solution is good.

The solution is easy to scale. What you need for your scalability is to have more assets. You can scale the resources, such as the processor and memory. The way to scale would be doing the repositories at sites.

We have approximately five IT users using this solution in the organization.

We have been using ManageEngine Desktop Central extensively in my organization but in the last year or so more we have been focused more on the SCCM. We plan to increase usage as the company expands.

I've spoken with technical support in the past. It's a hit and miss, depending on who you speak with support. Some agents are very strong and some agents tell us to read an article and come back if we have any more problems.

The technical support could improve by being more consistent.

I have used other solutions in the past.

We do our software deployment based on a logical grouping of computers. ManageEngine Desktop Central provides the ability to create groups or a collection of computers. That's what they call it. If we can create the collection, of the software we've just uploaded to ManageEngine Desktop Central, it synchronizes it against all repositories. Then based on that collection, we only need to tell it to deploy that piece of software to the computers.

We can also use another tool for deployment that Desktop Central has which is really nice called the self-service portal. We have a list of applications that are common and ones that are not. The applications that not every user uses. For example, in the SAP GUI, not everybody uses SAP. We can have it published in the self-service portal and if the user needs it, they can deploy it themselves.

We use one person for the deployment of the solution. However, the deployment difficulty and time depends on a few factors, such as the size of the collection, how many computers are you deploying it to, how many users, and what is the size of the package and their complexities. Usually, once it's all replicated and the agents are online, if we tell it to deploy, it's almost immediate. Additionally, we do deployment based on off-hours, we can do them immediately or we can schedule deployments.

When the solution is up and running it does not require a lot of maintenance because it uses PostgreSQL, they have routines that manage the database. The only thing that you need to keep your eye on is the size of the repositories because as you patch more and you deploy more software, the size of your repositories grows and you need to keep a watch on this.

We make everybody else look good. We have received a return on investment because we were able to deploy applications a lot easier where we do not have to get the field services team involved.

The solution is very affordable.

The nice thing about ManageEngine Desktop Central is that when it's time for renewal, you can increase your footprint by the number of assets you're managing. I can scale up and down based on the size of my organization.

My advice to those wanting to implement this solution would be if they have a small IT department and they do not have strong IT people, ManageEngine Desktop Central is pretty simple to deploy. The complexity is not as big as an SCCM or some of the other products.

In terms of training, there's a lot of things on YouTube that tell you exactly how to do it. There is some good documentation from ManageEngine Desktop Central. It is very simple to deploy and get it up and running.

I rate ManageEngine Desktop Central an eight out of ten.

I'm a system admin and network engineer.

I've found the solution to be user-friendly for us in the IT department and for our employees. Raising a ticket is pretty much effortless and getting it to the next level is also simple. The entire package is quite flawless. The functionality, the basic elements and the help aspect are all fine.

The user interface could be improved because it's quite hardware based. There are no dynamic changes on web pages and it's lacking visually. 

I've been using this solution for six months. 

The solution is stable. I haven't found any crashes or abnormalities in the program.

We haven't fully tested scalability. For now our users include three IT people and 105 employees.

We haven't needed any support but I think everything is available on YouTube.

The initial setup was straightforward and took maybe half an hour. I found some useful tips on YouTube.

We've only tested the help desk aspect to date. From that perspective I would definitely recommend it. We've been testing ManageEngine for the past six months and we'll continue that for a while longer. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

Windows patching and inventory management are the most valuable features

ManageEngine Desktop Central is very limited. When you scan your system, it will only recognize Microsoft Windows Defender and BitLocker. The warranty period, on Desktop Central only recognizes the Dell. They do not recognize HP and they do not recognize any other brand like ThinkPad.

I have been using ManageEngineDesktop Central for eleven years.

ManageEngine Desktop Central is stable.

We maintain ourselves, but if there is something beyond our knowledge, then we contact technical support.

Neutral

I have used Spiceworks.

I would rate pricing as a seven on a scale of one to ten. ManageEngine Desktop Central could be cheaper.

Seven hundred users are currently using the system.

I would rate ManageEngine Desktop Central an eight on a scale of one to ten.

We don't yet use it in our office. It is for our customers. We have implemented it for a few banking customers in the middle east, and we are now waiting to also use it for our internal purposes.

In terms of technical capability, it is doing very well. It is doing better than other industry products. It is at a place where we can compare it with Microsoft products. Its scalability is also good.

Its licensing should be improved.

I have been using it for almost two years.

It is stable.

It is scalable by nature. It supports two models: on-premises and SaaS.

I would advise any organization that wants to implement Manage Engine to pick the right components of Manage Engine during the design stage itself, such as Patch Manager or Mobile Desk Manager, and then go ahead with the implementation. 

I would rate it a seven out of 10.