ManageEngine Endpoint Central Reviews

The automation control over scheduling server patching along with the ability to automate the reboot time has been critical. This process isn't straightforward, but after figuring out the requirements staggering reboots is an easy process to manage.

The software has provided the ability for us to not only replace SCCM seamlessly, but to train and allow for easy cross training.

The way patches are pushed out and applied can use a little work as it appears the patches are pushed out and just force applied as a group, as opposed to a specific registry pattern. Not too often, but this causes servers lockup or fail patching as it halts reboots before other patches can be applied which cannot be applied because the registry is locked from previous patches applied.

This software has been in place coming up on a year now. The flexibility of the software has proven very useful. A small business perspective replacing SCCM with this product has proven both cost effective and an efficient use of our staffs time.

We have had no issues deploying it.

There have been no stability issues.

Overall once we figured out the process structure we really did not have a whole lot of issues. From our client base, and architecture I do not see anything that would hinder scalability based on the way the remote offices are setup within this code.

I would preface this by saying in general the FAQ's are pretty helpful. Overall the support system has been helpful for this specific product, but we have not needed a whole lot of assistance.

We previously used SCCM which is a great enterprise solution if you can keep the administration knowledge on-site. For a small business, SCCM did not meet the ease of use or the price break which was the reasoning for the move to Desktop Manager MSP 9.

The installation of the product itself was very straightforward. The installer was pretty much default settings all the way through and was able to reference FAQ's for the few custom settings we desired.

Implementation was done in-house and for the most part was straightforward. Once the client setup process is done I would suggest babysitting the automated pushes for a couple of weeks. We ran into some weird issues that we were able to resolve fairly quickly and completed the maintenance during our timeframe which otherwise would have just looked like the patching jobs failed completely when they succeeded in reality.

The ROI switching to this product was noticeable after it had been around six months as we were able to retire our SCCM product along with the licensing that comes with using SQL.

I like the ease of setup and administration. There are some minor annoyances with how often the server software needs patched, how patching is applied and how the terminologies are translated.

Keep an eye on the automated reporting that is generated. We have not fully invested the time to discover why we have inconsistencies with the data, but it appears to be happening.

The features that give us the most value are patch management, remote control, and configuration management.

We used to use Windows Server Update Services, but had difficulty getting reports that gave an accurate picture of the patch situation across the estate. 

Desktop Central allows both Microsoft and third-party patching while giving precise reporting and dashboards, enabling us to catch problem computers easily, as well as show the company that we are keeping their IT infrastructure safe.

The ability to backup and restore or move user profiles to another PC would be a fantastic addition to the feature set.

We have used this solution for five years now.

We've had no issues with deployment.

We've had no issues with stability.

We've had no issues with scalability.

I have found customer service to be very responsive. I have had a couple of issues over the years and on one occasion logged a ticket on the ManageEngine support site and had a call back within 15 minutes. The support rep took control of the server and fixed the issue within 10 minutes. 

They are also very responsive as far as feature requests are concerned. I have in the past requested features and have had at least some of them make it into the product.

We used Altiris for our service desk, as well as systems management, before it became Symantec. It was a very good but expensive solution. 

I was tasked with finding a replacement for the cost of the maintenance of Altiris. I did that with the combination of ServiceDesk Plus, Desktop Central and OS Deployer.

Installation and initial configuration is very easy, taking less than an hour to have a fully-working system on a network of 700+ computers. Obviously, it takes more time to fine tune the solution to your exact needs, but you can have an installation ready and auditing your estate in no time at all. I would say that any reasonably competent IT person can set this up with no outside help. The installation was very easy and required no help from any outside company including ManageEngine.

I did it by myself in-house.

Not sure if it is the case now, but they used to say 80% of the features of the big players for 20% of the cost. I think that they may be overlooked because of the price, but download it and take a look. You will be very surprised.

Give it a go. If you are a small business of less than 25 users, it is free. For larger companies, it is a very reasonably priced solution. It is feature rich and the list of features is growing rapidly. Depending on the version you have, new features are free of charge. Some features are only in Enterprise and not in Pro.

It has several features that I've found valuable, but the most valuable are Patch Management, SW Distribution, Asset Management and Mobile Device Management.

I'd like to see Patch Management for Linux Systems, which it doesn't have right now and which we could really use.

I've used it for eight years.

We've had no issues with deployment.

We've had no issues with stability.

We've had no issues with scalability.

ManageEngine offers a great customer support in the pre-sale phase and even after the sale.

Technical and after-sale support is great.

Yes, before we used Microsoft SCCM, and we’ve switched to Desktop Central for its minor cost and its simple usage and deployment.

The initial setup was straightforward and very user friendly.

• Patch Management
• Inventory

It has allowed us to deploy laptops to users and not worry about patching Microsoft and third-party applications.

The web interface could use some polishing. I would also like to see some enhancements on what parameters you can use to push an application.

I have been using the product for over five years.

No issues with deployment.

No issues with scalability. One of the reasons that we went with Desktop Central is the small footprint.

Very happy with tech support but would like to see someone there on the weekends.

We used Novell's ZENWorks 10 and 11. We chose it based on it's small footprint and the features such as 3rd party patch management

Very easy to implement. A few clicks and you are done.

I did it myself for 300 workstations as you can leverage the program to install via Active Directory credentials.

The ROI was three months for us.

The ROI was three months for us.

Be aware that updates are once a month. They usually take about 30 minutes to perform.

Software distribution is the most valuable feature for us.

It improves our organization's efficiency because we're now able to install software quickly rather than manually touching each machine.

The remote desktop piece has started to fail and we have numerous disconnects while remote logging into a PC. Thought getting rid of the Java piece would help, but it hasn’t.

We haven't encountered any issues with deployment.

There have been no instances of instability.

It's been scalable for us.

3/10 - They have messed up our licensing the last three times we needed to purchase additional licenses. Also, they are difficult to understand.

We used Altiris, but they did not support Windows 7.

The initial set-up was very easy.

We were quite rushed to find a product to replace Altiris and this seemed to be the best choice at the time for remote desktop administration and software distribution. When it works, it works well, but their technical support area needs improving.

The functionality most valuable to us is the distribution of our software packages to all workstations. We also like the automatic asset management function which allows us the ability to retrieve and configure all necessary CI reports for auditing issues, for example.

This software gives good insight of all the running applications, especially those that were not installed through DC9 or manually by an admin.

Often I had issues with user configurations. An additional check should be built that, before installing software through a user config, the software checks if an application has already been installed on the workstation or not. Especially because of roaming profiles and workplaces nowadays, this becomes a “must-have” option.

I've used it for approximately one year.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

9/10

Before DC9 I used Scense (Dutch-programmed software distribution tool) which was only good for distribution of software, mostly through scripted applications. DC9 was very much more intuitive, flexible and clear.

Just click and install.

Just downloaded from manageengine.com and implemented and configured myself. Read an overview of this software beforehand so you know how you want and/or need to configure the software.

DC9 is a simple, cheap and complete software distribution tool, also to configure all necessary options to control all kinds of OS options on the workstations like in Microsoft Group Policy Editor.

I value the remote deployment solution the most as that functionality is used daily. However, other parts of the software like patch management, inventory and client/user configurations are also highly regarded.

It changed the entire flow of my department, though it is not a large department ranging from 55 to 75 users and about 130 clients (which includes lab and student PCs). I was able to save one full time employee and, thus, the software allowed me to present a serious cost reduction to the department staff.

I would love to have the self-service portal which is now present in the Enterprise edition to be deployed to the users of the Professional edition as well.

I implemented Desktop Central in spring 2009 and have used it ever since.

The response from the technical support staff was great whenever I needed it. They are also open to suggestions from the community and now and then implement ideas offered by the community.

We previously had a full time employee running around to install software when demanded.

It's straightforward. Between setup, testing and deployment of my first software package there was half a day. Since I have been running Desktop Central for six years. People looking for an easy management tool without steep learning curve like MS System Center should definitely have a look at Desktop Central.

We deployed in-house and have no additional remarks about implementation.

We have saved one full time employee.

We get Academic licensing which is not representative for the majority of users.

People looking for an easy management tool without steep learning curve like MS System Center should definitely have a look at Desktop Central.

• Patch Management
• Software Licensing
• Asset Management
• Reporting
• Mobile Device Management
• Remote Control

Patch management was being done manually and as a result many workstations and servers were lacking current critical/important security updates and OS fixes. With the implementation of Desktop Central's patch management functionality, it is now a more streamlined and automated process with the use of deployment schedules aligned with Patch Tuesday from Microsoft. In three months over 1000 critical/important updates were applied to over 1500 workstations/servers using this tool.

It would be helpful to add image management to this tool.

We had no issues deploying it.

There have been no instability issues.

It's scaled just fine.

Don't use it with Internet Explorer, as it's glitchy. Chrome or FireFox work best.