ManageEngine Endpoint Central Reviews

ManageEngine facilitates our control of the engines. It enables us to access our endpoints remotely and manage endpoint configuration.

We don't use it much for software license management, but we use it for deploying some in-house software. It helps us in that way, so we don't have to do have to do it manually.

I like that they are constantly upgrading features. It has everything we need. 

Improvement should be done as per customer requirements.

I have experience with ManageEngine Endpoint Central.

The solution is highly stable. 

It is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

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

We use ManageEngine Endpoint Central for endpoint management.

Page management and ADA integrations are the most valuable features of ManageEngine Endpoint Central.

ManageEngine Endpoint Central’s scalability could be improved.

ManageEngine Endpoint Central is a stable product. I rate ManageEngine Endpoint Central ten out of ten for stability.

I rate ManageEngine Endpoint Central an eight out of ten for scalability. Currently, we have 10 machines running the solution in our organization.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

The solution’s deployment took 15 to 20 days.

Compared to other products, ManageEngine Endpoint Central is a very cheap solution.

I recommend ManageEngine Endpoint Central to other users because it is quite easy to deploy.

Overall, I rate ManageEngine Endpoint Central a nine out of ten.

The solution is implemented in a medium-sized company. We're working with the enterprise edition.

The solution is deployed on-premises and on the cloud.

The patch manager is good and it's easy to use. There's a good learning curve. It's easy to deploy and can be implemented in a short amount of time.

The MDM feature isn't very good. It doesn't support Amazon vendors.

I have used this solution for seven years.

It's stable.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support is very good.

Compared with VMware Workspace, ManageEngine Desktop Central is a better product.

It's easy to set up.

I would rate this solution as 10 out of 10. 

It's stable and there are no bugs. It's a very good solution. 

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.

Our main use case, the core function we are using it for, is Patch Management. We download the patches from the database in the Desktop Central server, then we test the patches in our system and push those patches on the server, Microsoft server and Windows, user machines.

Inventory Management, Managing Index of Central, was the second main function that we were using to maintain all the records of our servers, laptops, and all the other devices, like Cisco devices and other things on our network. We manage all of our assets through Central.

We have directory information using User Management, where we sync all users from the Active Directory to Desktop Central to give access to the users.

We did not use Mobile Device Manager, MDM.

The first benefit that we use Desktop Central for is this: In our audit reports, we have to compile a list of all the vulnerable systems and determine which are healthy systems and which are vulnerable and highly nervous systems. On a quarterly basis, we have to make sure that all the systems are healthy. We categorize all the highly vulnerable systems and install the patches on those using Desktop Central. 

Patch Management is the most valuable feature of Desktop Central. We have all the information on the patches we are going to push on the systems and which patches are not installed on the server. We know which servers or Windows machines or Linux machines are highly vulnerable. We categorize the machines so if there are any issues on one of the machines, we just take care of those specific machines which are highly vulnerable and take care of the patches which are not installed on those machines. 

Inventory is also a very good feature of Desktop Central. We don't need to manage all the inventories manually. We just install the Managing Desktop Central agent in all the systems, put down the report request, and download all the reports to share with management. 

There are many features that we use from Desktop Central, but Inventory Management is a solid feature, and Patch Management is a solid feature.

One area that could be improved with the solution would be integrations. Sometimes it happens that the agent got corrupted on the systems, and we have to manually uninstall and push it to the systems again. Also, ManageEngine does not recognize systems that are not on our network. For example, one of our employees in another city did not connect his or her laptop to the system for a few months, or just connected to the internet and did not connect to our VPN, so the agent got corrupted or disconnected from our ManageEngine. Then we have to manually ask them to connect to the network. Then we push all the updates.

That's the only issue we really face with Desktop Central. So if somehow we could connect it through the internet, that would be a great improvement. Right now, if a user is not connected to the VPN or the network and he's outside the country or city, and when he just connects the internet, ManageEngine does not connect to communicate with our server. 

Regarding additional features, I had created a lot of tickets for feature enhancement, things which were not available in Desktop Central previously, but were noted by the team, developed by the Desktop Central team, and published. For the last year and a half, and I haven't opened any tickets or seen any additional requirements from our side. Desktop Central is very good software.

I worked with this solution for about five years. I have had a great experience with Desktop Central, and I have great knowledge of this product. Five years of experience for one product is sufficient to learn the things under the product.

The performance of Desktop Central is nice. We don't need any high-end servers for Desktop Central; we just install it on a VM, Virtual Machine, the database, gigs, memory, and a few hard discs, and we don't need any high-end CPUs for the Desktop Central support. The performance is good, and it doesn't require any high-end processor.

The solution is definitely scalable. Once you are working on a virtualization environment, it's very simple to scale any product. We can enhance the memory and the processor of the servers.

We have around 400 or 500 client machines using the solution, and I was the person managing it for the last five years. In the last three months, my colleague has now been taking care of managing Desktop Central.

Customer support was great. They were helpful and always responded to my queries, and they help really quickly. I'm very happy with the Desktop Central support team.

I created a lot of tickets for support and new features. They promptly responded and took care of those issues and how to resolve them. If I don't know how to perform the step, they always send detailed documentation or detailed steps to perform those tasks. The technical support is good. 

One thing that could be improved is documentation. For example, with Atlassian Jira and Confluence, their documentation is very strong. Desktop Central could improve the documentation so we don't need to create the support requests first; we just go to the documentation, and it should be very simple in words so everyone who is not technical or doesn't have the in-depth knowledge of Desktop Central can easily read and perform those steps. 

The initial setup of the solution is simple. We have a server on which we set up the Desktop Central server, and we synchronize our active directory with it. Then we push the agents in, on the OUs, and then on all the system got pushed. It only takes a few hours for the initial setup from scratch. 

The upgrade process is also very simple. We just bring down the system, get the update downloaded to the server, post it on the server, install it, and bring the server up. So that's great, and the agent always upgrades on the systems as well, once the server is upgraded. The upgrades only take a few minutes.

The validation process is quite long because we have to make sure that it upgrades all the agents on all the client machines. The validation is a lengthy process just to make sure that all the systems are upgraded on the new version of the agent. But the overall process is not very long.

I did the deployment of the solution on my own. I always upgrade the server myself, and I was the person who was managing the Desktop Central server and managing the Desktop Service Desk on my own.

The pricing is fine. We purchase a one year agreement and one year support with Desktop Central for 500 users, and the price was fine. We were not charged for any additional costs, except the licensing.

I've recommended this product to a few of my colleagues in different companies because I was admiring this product when we need to make sure that all the systems are healthy and patches are installed. It's a very user-friendly product, and anyone can use this product.

I'm currently using this solution as a configuration manager, for patch management, and scheduling the batches to run automatically, as well as OS deployment, MDM, for install agents on other computers, to allow us to see the software in the inventory.

Patch management is the most useful aspect of the product.

The initial setup is easy.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is very good. 

Technical support could be better. They should increase their hours of availability so that they are easier to reach and it's more convenient for us.

The pricing could be a bit better. 

They must change project management on Service Desk Plus to make it possible to integrate with Microsoft Project on Service Desk Plus and to increase the results on Google maps, on the Mobile Management, so that we can track our mobiles devices. Right now, it's not integrated with Google maps. This is a major issue.

I've been using the solution for four years.

The stability of the solution is very good. the performance is reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. there are no bugs or glitches. 

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can.

While you can live chat with technical support, they are only available for maybe seven or eight hours a day. If you have a problem at night they aren't available. 

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. It's not a problem at all in terms of being able to handle the implementation. 

I handled the implementation myself. If did not need the assistance of any integrators or consultants.

It's my understanding that the pricing is pretty high.

We're a partner. 

I am currently working with both cloud and on-premises deployment models. 

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. 

With that solution, we can push patches out. We can deploy software, and it tracks our inventory. We can do OS deployment with it. That's about all that we use it for right now.

The patch management aspect of the solution is the most valuable part for us.

Overall, our experience has not been good.

In terms of the software itself, it's just kind of hit or miss as to whether or not it works. I've had to spend a lot of time with their port trying to get to work.

Technical support is not reliable. 

The solution isn't fully stable, and, when it goes down, it's hard to get it up and running.

The initial setup is complicated.

I've been using the solution for five or so years. It's been a while. 

I wouldn't say that it's stable. We've just had problems. Due to the fact that it's pretty complicated, to me anyway, and then when it does go down, it takes a while to get it working again.

The technical support, like the software, is hit or miss. Sometimes it takes a long time to get anything done. We would prefer it if they were more reliable. We're not satisfied with the level of service we get.

The initial setup is rather complex. It's not really straightforward. 

I can't speak to their exact pricing. I don't have any information on that.

We are customers and end-users.

From Manage Engine, we're using just the Desktop Central and the Log 360. Desktop Central does not happen to be the MSP.

We are using version 10.1.2119.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend the solution to others. I would advise users to keep looking into other options.

I'd rate the solution at a four out of ten. We haven't been very happy overall.

We use this solution for Patch Management, IT Asset Management, and Remote Control on Network Computers.

We adopted this solution by replacing GFI LanGuard.

Current version of Endpoint central has great capabilities over patch management and software deployment. Also we can take advantages of many system tools and configurations for day to day work.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the Patch Management.

The Patch Management functionality needs still improvements. No provision to control network traffic. 

The Deployment scheduler needs updating to support various methods for deployment.

We have used this solution from 2012 onward.

Solution is very stable and has great featurs that can be used by system admins.

The product has great capabilitied only the should understand the patching process more deeply to avoid failures and client system issues such as OS corrupt, continuos patch failed, system hanging etc.

Support needs improvement. They totally realy on customers at present.

Neutral

GFI LanGuard has poor capicity and feature for patch deployment. We find many client computer OS getting corrupt due to improper patch deployment.

It take a while to understand the process for us.

We implemented in-house.

Manage Engine Licensing policy is best among all. You should always take 10% less licenses than projected. I will advise to learn and implement the solution in-house rather than buying initial setup service.

GFI LanGuard

You can limit the admins and users for the Endpoint Management to reduce the cost.