Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

The main use case for Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is in the area of desktop management, such as hardware inventory, software, and deployment management.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is valuable in keeping our systems updated. We are able to send updates to all the systems. Additionally, the Intune integration is helpful.

The time the solution takes for updating systems could be quicker. For example, the system information status is not updating as it should. Additionally, the database synchronization querying is slow and could be improved. 

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for approximately 10 years.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is stable.

The scalability of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is great. We are able to extend the solution to multiple site locations.

Typically, we would contact Microsoft for technical support only if the issue at hand is beyond our expertise, as we try to resolve it as much as possible on our own. For more complex technical problems, we would submit a support ticket through Microsoft's email support system to receive advanced assistance. They have provided us with timely support when we needed it.

I previously used ManageEngine and a few others before the use of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager.

The main difference is the price and packages of the solutions. Some of them come as a complete package with VMware software as part of their offering. Depending on the customer's use case one solution might be better than the other. 

One area that stands out regarding Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager over the rest is its reliability.

The initial setup for Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is simple. However, the configuration and management are not simple.

Most of my clients are using the on-premise configuration. Cloud deployment is cumbersome because It requires lots of system communication to open from the cloud, and every client has to communicate with the cloud.

We follow the Microsoft best practices procedure and white papers for implementation. Which includes single and multiple server deployments.

The time it takes for deployment depends on the client's environment, such as the configuration and customization needed. However, the process can typically take two to three weeks to complete.

We use two to three engineers for the deployment of the solution.

The solution can be managed by one engineer. The person involved has to have some knowledge, and they need to be dedicated to the task. Not anyone can do it. It is ideal to have a team for the task.

The solution is helpful for IT teams.

I rate Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager an eight out of ten.

We use Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for application deployment and patching. We run the gamut, and we use it for quite a bit.

To do what we are doing with the configurations manager manually would be impossible. We have over 100,000 systems, and it simplifies a lot of what we are doing. The reporting aspect allows you to report on patch compliance, etc. It just simplifies a lot of things.

I like a lot of the reporting capabilities and baseline configurations.

Some of the capabilities aren't fully developed yet. It's an ongoing work in progress. I think they are making some steps in the right direction as far as managing workstations centrally, like Intune. 

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for over ten years.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is stable.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give stability a nine. 

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is very scalable. We probably have 150,000 users right now.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability a nine.

The initial setup is a bit challenging. We have a relatively complex environment. It's a little bit more complicated than it might be for a smaller environment. It can be relatively straightforward, but there are some twists in our environment.

We implemented this solution.

I would tell potential users that it's a worthwhile solution for any company that has to manage a lot of systems. It's a great tool.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager an eight.

First off, to clarify some confusion, Microsoft recently changed the name of a previous on-premises tool called SCCM (Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager) to MECM (Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager).

In our company, we originally used SCCM with all our Microsoft products, but after a while, many companies including ours started to move their on-premises devices to the cloud, and MECM, along with Intune on an Azure tenant, became our preferred solution for managing devices that are both on-premises and in the cloud.

I worked with a team to complete the upgrade of our SCCM solution to the current version of MECM, which we now use exclusively to deploy software packages, scripts, updates, and operating systems via task sequences. Then, after buying an Azure AD tenant, we took out a license for Microsoft Intune (now part of MECM), in order to link our use of MECM for managing devices that exist on the internet, such as in the case of teleworkers.

MECM has given us many benefits, but the main benefit is that we no longer have to deploy software manually onto hard drives or with USB flash drives, and instead you can do everything over the network.

Our company is spread over several regions, with the headquarters located in Paris, France, and with two remote locations in Paris and two remote locations in Morocco, where I am based. With MECM, we can deploy distribution points (e.g. file servers) in different areas, such that we can deploy packages from any of the distribution points that are nearest to the intended location.

This is useful because when a device needs a package, it will trace the location of the nearest distribution point from which it can source the package, to speed up the transfers over the internet and not impact the overall bandwidth.

I manage software updates and operating systems for devices, and within seconds, we can remotely deploy a system for, say, 2,000 devices. Not only that, but we can also deploy scripts and create comprehensive compliance rules.

There are several challenges regarding MECM worth mentioning.

With MECM, you can't deploy packages remotely for end users who are working from home, unless you pass them through Intune with an Azure tenant. After initiating a VPN connection, the remote machine will contact Intune in order to retrieve packages, scripts, etc.

Intune is a great solution for managing devices but it is expensive because you also have to buy an Azure service called CMG (Cloud Management Gateway). CMG works as an intermediary between your on-premises MECM server and remote end users, via email authentication, but it can be difficult to integrate with MECM and costly.

There are also some limitations of Intune, such as the inability to deploy operating systems the traditional way via task sequences, making it such that we have to use Autopilot to deploy operating systems. Though, with Intune and Autopilot you can deploy what you have on-premises, including GPO strategies for local endpoints and general endpoint configurations. 

It is important to note that MECM by itself can only manage Microsoft devices, despite how Intune can be used alongside it to manage multiple platforms (e.g. Android / Apple devices).

Finally, there is a steep learning curve when it comes to administration. A lot of experience is needed in terms of troubleshooting, as this is one of the most difficult tasks in MECM. We were seven people in a group and I was the only one that had the patience to do the troubleshooting at times. If we have a problem with a certain feature in MECM, we need to observe the log, reading and analyzing, to discover the problem. 

I have worked with Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for six years.

MECM is stable. However, whenever Microsoft makes changes or updates to the workstation operating system (Windows 10, for example), you also have to adapt your version in the server accordingly. So, in future, if you're going to be deploying Windows 11, you will also need to upgrade your version of Windows in MECM. This means that you are always thinking about which versions of operating systems you have in your workstations as well as which versions you have in MECM.

You have to do such maintenance every six months, where you need to consider the versions of operating systems while upgrading and testing to see if they are compatible with your MECM. On the whole, it ends up being a lot of work.

To improve scalability across on-premises and cloud environments, Microsoft introduced Intune which is a service implemented with MECM in the cloud in order to provide communication with devices in remote locations. So if you need to manage remote devices with MECM, you can do so by buying the Azure tenant service, and attach it to your MECM.

In total, we are using MECM and Intune to configure almost 2,000 devices across the company.

We haven't had many problems that have warranted the use of Microsoft support. Thankfully, there are a lot of people on the internet who are also working with MECM so we have a lot of documentation to work with. If you follow the documentation, you don't need the support of Microsoft.

Before using the original SCCM, we had never used anything similar.

It's not easy to implement MECM at first because you are required to have some experience on how to deploy the database for MECM. At our company we already have people working in the data center who have lots of experience in deploying with VMs and virtualization (e.g. Hyper-V and VMware), but for me, implementing MECM was difficult.

It took us around six months to complete the entire implementation because our company has several remote locations which have to be served by the remote distribution server and distribution point servers, and after implementing each server, you have to test it extensively before you put it into production.

We did the implementation by ourselves. We have staff in different areas who helped deploy MECM, including support staff and data center personnel. For example, one person takes care of the AD server, and another takes care of our use of Intune. Yet another group takes care of the IT, engineering, and system administration, of which three people might be there just to handle the load balancing. It all depends on the requirements at the time.

If you have a small company and you have a simple need to install operating systems remotely, you can install WDS (Windows Deployment Service) on a server, which can help with the task of deploying operating systems and software remotely. But if your company has a lot of applications and devices that need monthly updates, it is better to buy a license for MECM.

I don't have the figures for the licensing because it's another group that manages the accounts and licensing for all the servers, but I believe it's quite expensive. The reason I say it's expensive is because we have a lot of products in our company, especially Microsoft products such as Microsoft Office and Microsoft System Center Orchestrator. 

Along with buying a license for MECM, we also have to buy a service called CMG (Cloud Management Gateway) which is a virtual machine in the cloud with which you can link your MECM to the Azure tenant so as to manage teleworkers. To explain a bit further, the teleworkers' machines communicate with the CMG as a tenant service in Azure, which then communicates with your MECM and on-premises policies, which then communicates back to the teleworker client.

This is a necessary process, but at least it is only a small feature and it is not difficult to add this relationship to your MECM as long as you have people experienced in the Azure tenant service.

MECM is a solution that needs a team that is well-experienced in implementation, administration, troubleshooting, and more, but the reward is worth the effort. My biggest piece of advice is that before you integrate it into your company, make sure you have the required skills.

I would rate MECM an eight out of ten.

We were replacing SCCM. It's been easy enough to do in terms of getting the devices and seeing what's being discovered from that type of info. We're looking for hardware and software data coming across. 

The solution is helping us by bringing the hardware details on it, and it's a software install. That way, we can account for the devices and identify and understand what is actually installed do the computers. 

It's very easy to use and understand. 

The solution is affordable.

It is stable and reliable. 

We've found scalability to be good.

Technical support was helpful and responsive.

The setup is simple and pretty standard. 

We'd like additional data related to security and the configurations of the hardware. 

On some hardware, we'd like an easier way to get peripherals attached. 

I've been using the solution for about six months. I haven't used it for that long. 

It is stable. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale well. We weren't surprised about anything. It does what needs to be done. 

Technical support is excellent. When we had a question, we got prompt answers. We are quite satisfied with the level of support. 

Positive

The initial setup was pretty standard. It was not complex. 

We have witnessed an ROI.

The pricing is good. I'd rate its affordability eight out of ten. It could always be cheaper, however, we are pretty happy with the cost.

We are not on the latest version. However, we're getting to upgrade the product.

You need to understand what type of data you need and what it can pull. That's part of the configuration that needs to be done at the outset. If you know what you want and you make sure the system can do it, and it's configured right, and you'll be happy.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use MECM for intelligent logic automation. About 400,000 users are impacted by the solution, but there are around 20 admins who work with it directly. We have multiple automation tools and use the one that makes sense as needed.

We're designing PowerShell scripts to automate patching the boot process. The ROI is there.

I like the data collection. 

The reports are too busy. They could be simpler. I'm a technician, so I don't care how pretty the reports look. They should be easy to read. I'm designing this for production folks. They need to read the reports quickly when they're patching in the middle of the night.

I have used MECM for about four or five months.

I rate MECM nine out of 10 for stability. 

I rate MECM eight out of 10 for scalability.

I haven't gotten support from Microsoft for MECM, but I've contacted them in the past for various tickets. They're professional.

I work in the lab. I design a solution before it's deployed in production. I wasn't involved in the actual deployment. Deploying things in the lab is different. It's a much smaller footprint.

So far, the ROI is pretty decent.

MECM is more expensive than Ansible, which is open and free. That's why we'll use other tools as needed for automation. 

I rate Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager seven out of 10. You need to have the right mindset to use it. The first question should always be: Can this be automated? From there, you'll see if the product will satisfy their automation requirements.

The primary use case of the solution is to deploy the computers and servers.

The most valuable feature is that it integrates well with other Microsoft solutions.

The solution can be improved with the addition of a mobile device manager.

I have been using the solution for three years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The implementation was completed in-house.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

I recommend the solution because it functions as advertised. The solution is user-friendly and easy to learn. The solution has a nice-looking interface, unlike others out there.

Microsoft Configuration Manager helps with patch management. 

The tool's deployment is difficult. Microsoft needs to improve documentation with videos. 

I have been working with the product for ten years. 

Microsoft Configuration Manager is stable. We have experienced downtime from time to time. 

We use the tool's free license. It is expensive. 

I rate Microsoft Configuration Manager a six out of ten. 

It is used for software deployments, PC operating system deployments, and security patch deployments.

Currently, we are using it on-premises, but we are slowly moving to the cloud solution that is called Intune or Microsoft Endpoint Management (MEM).

We have high availability for all of our deployments. We can trust this platform for all our deployments. We are quite happy with the fact that we can do what we want to do. It fulfills our goals for all deployments.

It is a very well-rounded product. It is a complete package with all the features using which we are able to manage our PCs very efficiently. 

One area of improvement is regarding the patching of Office 365 products. We have some difficulties on this side, and it can be improved.

Their support should be improved. Mostly, when we are doing patches on Microsoft 365 clients, we need to escalate to Microsoft support. It takes a long time to get to someone in their support team who has good knowledge of the product. Their support at level one is not quite helpful and knowledgeable.

In my previous company, we deployed SCCM two years ago.

And in my current company, I have been using this solution for more than one year.

Its stability is quite good, and its performance is quite good. There is nothing to complain about.

It is scalable, but we are far from reaching that limit. We don't have any problem with its scalability.

We have three people working on the SCCM side. In terms of the implementation, we have 6,000 PCs that have this installed. It is being used daily.

Mostly, when we are doing patches on Microsoft 365 clients, we need to escalate to Microsoft support. We are not quite happy with the support because it takes a long time to get to someone who is knowledgeable. When we have a tricky issue like this, it is very complicated to get appropriate support. We lose a lot of time with Microsoft support before we find someone who is able to understand and resolve the issue. 

Positive

We were previously working with BigFix. I also worked with HPE's solution. As compared to these two products, SCCM is much more integrated with the Microsoft ecosystem. We are fully on Windows, so it is much easier for us to manage our PCs with SCCM. It is easier to have a Microsoft product on Microsoft operating systems.

It is a Microsoft product, and we have an efficient team that is managing the solution. We have a lot of people who have the knowledge of doing its setup. So, deployment is not an issue for us. If you know the product, it is quite easy. You just need the knowledge of the product.

From the beginning to the end, it took about six months. It was deployed on all PCs.

We mainly had two people for its implementation. I managed the deployment, and I had one external resource who helped me in implementing the full product. To implement it, we needed to integrate all of the enterprise applications. This integration of the enterprise applications was outsourced, and there were a few people involved.

For its maintenance, we have a resource in India who is managing the solution. We need one full-time administrator for managing the solution. We also have one person who is integrating new applications and updates with this platform.

Its licensing is quite complicated because we are getting the license not only for SCCM but for the full Microsoft package. We don't need to pay for a separate license. We need to have one license that includes everything we need, such as Windows, Microsoft 365, SCCM, encryption, and so on. So, we don't have a specific price for it. Perhaps, it is good that it includes the full suite of licensing of Microsoft. It is expensive, but we are getting a lot of features.

In the next release, we are moving to the cloud, which also fits the strategy of Microsoft. We would like that the features on the cloud side are very similar to what we have on the on-premise side. We are looking to move to the cloud with Intune, but Intune is not like SCCM in terms of the features. We prefer that they develop all the features on the cloud.

I would recommend others to go for it if they are using any other solution to manage their Windows or Microsoft environment. It will make life easier. I would also recommend others to check the cloud solution before implementing the on-premise solution. They can see what can be done on the cloud. Cloud is not fully ready to replace the on-premise solution, but they can do some of the parts on the cloud and some of the parts on-premises.

I would rate it a nine out of 10.