Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

I am using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for patch management and asset inventory.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is it's incredibly simple to configure and execute changes in bulk, allowing for seamless deployment. With this solution, you can easily track the status of all modifications and send them with ease, making it a comprehensive and efficient solution for any necessary adjustments.

The assets have reached their end-of-life, and patching them is a complex and laborious task. It would be highly advantageous if there were an integrated solution that provided distinct options for each end-of-life asset, streamlining the process and facilitating comprehension.

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for approximately one and a half years.

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

We have approximately 10,000 users using the solution.

I rate the scalability of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager a ten out of ten.

I use Tanium in parallel with Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager. Tanium is a similar solution that has features, such as asset patching, and encryption, and can be configured around Microsoft assets.

The initial setup of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is simple.

There is an annual license needed to use the solution.

This tool is helpful for Microsoft assets but it is important to have clear visibility before implementation. It can be a complete solution but a plan.

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

We use this solution to apply new group policies.

The solution was particularly helpful for patching the OS, and for the VM in our environment. With 10 branches, we have a huge number of VMs. Using ECM, we can download the new patches one by one, apply and then restore them. It saves us a lot of time. 

The valuable feature is the ability to gain all the data you need. We can collect data and get insight into the functionalities of their scope. As system administrators, we get a summarized report for each site with the installed version of the OS for all PCs in our environment. We know which meet the requirements and which don't. For those that don't, we can mitigate any potential vulnerabilities or threats.

I think managing Linux devices could be improved. It would help our colleagues and other departments like the dev opps, who only use Linux machines to quickly patch their VMs.

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

The technical support could be improved. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. We have six users. 

It's important to keep the database going at all times to avoid any interruption of the service. The implementation must be very well designed because you have to know the scope of your workload and that should be addressed in the action plan before proceeding with the deployment. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

The on-premises useability is very good.

The solution is stable. 

For the most part, for our needs, the scaling is fine.

Microsoft is already pushing users towards Intune, as opposed to SCCM. It's on the roadmap for them. It's inevitable. SCCM will be on Endpoint Manager in the future. I would say nothing needs to be changed.

The solution is on-premises. The cloud version of the product, if a person needs to be on the cloud, would be InTune, which already exists as an option. SCCM doesn't need to offer cloud features for this reason.

We have used the solution for the past decade. It's been around ten years at this point.

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

SCCM is built for corporate networks. There is some advantage from Microsoft in terms of the content management gateway that we already have so that we can utilize the internet, however, scaling is fairly it's straightforward.

In our company, we have 44,000 devices. We do not need more. Scalability-wise we are good. We are not a company of hundred thousand devices. I'm not looking to scale it more. Therefore, I can't speak to what scalability would be like for those with 100,000 or more devices.

We have a support team that does technical support for us. I don't work directly with Microsoft. I go into priority calls, however, our technical teams manage that. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

We are trying to transition from SCCM to Bigfix.

My understanding is that the installation is a two-day setup, however, I did not personally set it up, and therefore can't speak of the implementation or how easy or difficult it might have been.

I cannot speak on pricing. I let the procurement team deal with it. Therefore, I don't have any information on licensing fees, et cetera.

I have looked at comparisons between Bigfix, SCCM, and Intune. I personally prefer INTune as a solution, however, the company is moving towards Bigfix and away from SCCM.

We are just customers and end-users of SCCM.

We have been using SCCM for the past decade, however, now, the company is supposed to go with Intune for model management. However, we have a new CPO or CSO double hatting with security as well. He's more inclined in Bigfix features, which offer more robust patch management as well as vulnerability scan. SWe dropped the plan to go with Intune and will go with Bigfix, moving us away from SCCM.

Our CPO, CSO is mainly the driver for the change, not because it is on our roadmap or our partnership with the vendor or anybody else.

In general, I would recommend the solution to other organizations and companies. We've been happy with it over the years. I'd rate it at a nine out of ten.

The tool's most valuable features are easy patch management and software deployment. We use it because it is a Microsoft product, which makes it more secure and easier to use.

Microsoft Configuration Manager makes it easier to control remote desktops. It supplements other products. 

The tool's deployment can be cumbersome. 

Microsoft Configuration Manager's stability is very good. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

We don't contact Microsoft directly for support. We get support through a third-party vendor. 

I rate the product's ease of deployment a four out of ten. 

A contractor helped us with the product's deployment. 

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

The primary use case of the solution is to deploy patches, and applications, and upgrade our client operating systems.

Without the solution, we would have to manually install all patches and software and upgrade our operating system with the help of our support team, which would take a long time. With SCCM, this process is automated, making it a highly valuable feature.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to deploy patches to nearly all applications.

SCCM should strive to enhance the accuracy of its reporting functions in order to avoid any issues with incorrect or inaccurate data.

Microsoft could supply an installation guide to make setup easier.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The solution is stable and we have not had any issues.

The solution is scalable.

We have 100,000 people using the solution.

The technical support is good. We can call the hotline or use the website to generate the tickets.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Maintenance for the solution is easy.

I recommend the solution to others.

We mostly use Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for patch management and application deployment. We will check and post a critical or supplement patch if there is a vulnerability.

I like Mircosoft's technical support. Microsoft has a few updates, like some of the critical KBs. They are published within the interval time, and in case of an escalation on the client missions, we will raise a ticket with the Microsoft team. They will create a hotfix or a critical update. They will chat with us, and that is one thing I like about Microsoft. Whenever any issues occur at my organization, they will help you out soon as possible within the SLA.

It would be better if automation options were available. For example, in Nexthink or SysTrack, there is an analytical tool. Creating dashboards would be very easy if you implement the same thing in Microsoft. That report will be a daily cost to the customers and good revenue for our organization. The price also could be better.

In the next release, we need to include some features like tables, dashboards, surveys, services, and metrics in the dashboard. Whatever we are implementing will be downloaded by a report. Apart from the report, we will telecast from the dashboard. It's very easy to compare, and it will be easy to telecast to the end-users.

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for five years.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is a stable solution. There is nothing to worry about. When Microsoft pushes updates or patches, they will be in the W-Sync server. We have some people who will concentrate on Sync's parameters. Apart from that, everything is perfect.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is a scalable solution.

From my point of view, I'm just giving 60% to 70% marks to those who support us with these issues. If there are any new issues, they will check in with the corresponding team, which takes some time. If there are issues with a single machine or server, or it affects the whole environment, they will analyze it from their end and provide a hotfix.

On a scale from one to five, I would give Microsoft technical support a four.

Positive

I would tell potential users that for 15,000 or 30,000 machines, you must go with Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager as it's the best tool. We can install the clients on all the end-user machines. All the data will be recorded in the Microsoft console itself. There's no need to worry if the patching activities will be hygienic, which will be very useful. 

You can go with another third-party software if you're just a small organization with 50-odd machines. The Microsoft license cost is relatively high, but everything will be perfect, stable, and reliable.

The initial setup is straightforward because Microsoft is always user-friendly. They will share the parameters, like troubleshooting steps and the pre-request. They will send the database knowledge-base document to us. It will be a step-by-step procedure. There won't be any worrying or alarming issues with Microsoft. If we have any problems, we will raise a ticket with Microsoft, and the team from Microsoft will help us. We can implement this solution within two or three hours, depending on the bandwidth speed.

On a scale from one to five, I will give the initial setup a four.

We implemented this solution.

The price could be better.

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

Our primary use case for this solution is deploying endpoints, applications and updates for large companies. The solution is deployed on-premises and on cloud.

It has the ability to perform mass distribution which is valuable.

It needs to be able to load faster during deployment and the new release could include this ability. This will allow us to deploy critical collections with over 50,000 to 60,000 users simultaneously.

We have been using this solution for approximately ten years and are currently using version 2203.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. The solution is the best there is in the market today. A feature that could be included in the next release is its ability to load faster during deployment.

We are using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager to manage our client's Microsoft estate. 

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is the availability of being able to manage the Microsoft estate. It handles many areas, such as asset management and tracking.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager could improve the integration.

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

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is highly stable.

The scalability of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is good.

The support for Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is good.

We did not face any challenges with the initial setup of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager. The time it takes to do the deployment depends upon the size of the environment. Smaller deployments don't take more than a week and very large deployments can take up to three to six months.

The support staff needed for Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager depends upon the size of the deployment. However, we do not require a large number of people to support it. 

Microsoft comes with an end-to-end package that can include Office 365 and many other applications put together, it makes it a very integrated system for people to use.

We have a support license from Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager and the overall price of the solution is reasonable.

I rate Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager a nine out of ten.