Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

The product is quite good. We are happy with the collaboration of SCCM with Patch My PC, which allows us to do patchwork.

While the solution is quite good, it can be difficult to understand the logic of this product when it comes to software inventory.

Upon examination of the on-premise and Azure environments, I feel that SCCM could be more flexible.

While the issue of documentation is not exclusive to SCCM, it can be improved. When it comes to Microsoft Office suite, it is not always clear to where the articles have been moved and the use of a built-in searching giant to find their whereabouts is not always a possibility. When the article is moved to a new location, it can make it challenging to find what I deem to be useful or interesting. 

I believe we started using SCCM in 2003.

Microsoft technical support used to be better. In spite of us being a premier customer, we find the support unsatisfactory. The qualifications are not at issue, but the excessive time it takes for them to react, investigate and provide us with answers is.

When it comes to technical support, it is a crapshoot. I know how Microsoft works from the inside, as we used to work for the company. There are times when we will speak with a person who is really qualified and interested in helping and the case can be closed in the course of a single remote session or call.

At other times the ticket is apparently not rotated to the right person. In such cases, we will encounter someone who is merely being polite, towards the end of keeping the customer engaged but without the ability to help. 

Pricing is not in my work description and is left up to management and my colleagues. 

Since I cannot think of anything in need of improvement concerning SCCM, I would rate it as a ten out of ten.

We use SCCM to access user data.

Basically, my requirement was to get the data from wherever it was available within the organization. SCCM helped identify how many computers we had, what software was loaded on it, what different types of data were available, and so on. It helped us a lot when it came to extracting the data.

It uses detailed descriptions of the workstations, and that is good for me.

I think SCCM can improve whatever details they shared with the integration partner. There was a lot of junk software and data. There should be flexibility to allow us to extract the data we require. In other words, the flexibility of accepting the specific data that we are looking for.

I want the system to provide some dependency relations. For example, you have a laptop, and you start working on it. If I can be informed that you're using the laptop at work, other machines that are dependent on this laptop will be able to provide that dependency relationship. I would like to see the relationship between different machines.

For a small-scale industry, the storage capacity is good. However, the performance and storage capacity could be better.

I have been using SCCM for a while as part of an integration project.

We are running almost 5,000 machines, and it was working fine from a performance perspective. 

Technical support is good.

The initial setup was straightforward and took us about a week to deploy this solution. The strategy was simple. We just had to do it in the same plugin, and we actually did learn on the job each day.

We used an integrator, and we still use them regularly or even daily. We might use them for other integrations as well.

I would tell potential users that SCCM is a good solution if their focus is on the number of computers and laptops they have in the company.

I used it for the first time, and it was good. But users should know what kind of databases they are using and if the integration has sufficient rights to access that data.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SCCM a seven.

In most cases, it is used by us to deploy software or manage configurations of certain applications.

We are pushing the WSUS updates through it and getting the normal systems grouping. 

You can do your software package through it and you can create and run scripts.

The database should be made to be more stable and robust, but not so much the configuration.

I am not sure if it is just bad administration and maintenance, but it fails quite a lot.

For me, it's the database, or maybe it's the maintenance overhead. It could be that it requires a lot of maintenance. If you don't maintain it, things could go wrong, this is my assumption.

We have been using this solution for a couple of months.

We are using the latest version.

It is not always stable. When it works it works, but It has a very sensitive database and it almost always crashes when we use it, especially if you don't take care of it.

I can't really say that the scalability is good or bad because I haven't had to do much of it.

I have never used any other similar product.

It is easy to install and quick to deploy.

We have admins to maintain this solution.

We didn't really evaluate other products.

We are more of a Microsoft house. It works out better to use these products.

As I have not used any other product, I can't say that I would or wouldn't recommend SCCM. If there is anything better, I would like to know.

It works, but the database fails almost every time. I would rate SCCM a seven out of ten.

The new CMD features are excellent. It is like a cloud environment gateway. 

The batch management is very helpful. The software deployment happens in there. 

There are many features relevant to many of our clients.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward.

The interface needs to be a little bit simpler. Right now, it's a bit hard to navigate with ease.

The integration capabilities could be better. They need to expand this aspect of their product.

The solution is a bit heavy on the sources such as RAM or CPU and the software needs to be a bit lighter.

SCCM does not support Linux and Unix. That has been deprecated and is no longer there. 

It would be ideal if the solution came with more features supporting Mac, then it would be a better product.

The solution is quite stable. We haven't really dealt with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

You can scale it up if you need to. You can add the client servers, for example. I've had multiple primary sites that I get as I go. A company that needs to scale can do so with relative ease.

We deal with companies that are often medium-sized or enterprise-level.

The technical support is good. It's provided by Microsoft and we have lots of cases with Microsoft. They have been able to support us effectively so far. We're satisfied with the support so far.

SCCM has been the only product that we have worked on. We haven't used anything else. We haven't worked with BigFix or anything like that.

The initial setup is easy. It's not overly complex. That said, anyone who's doing it needs to be a bit clever. It's not for people with little technological background. There is a bit of research required. You need to learn a bit about the product for effective deployment.

We handle the deployments for clients.

I don't deal with the pricing. I'm not aware of the costs in general. I can't say if it's reasonable or expensive. It's not my area of expertise.

I haven't really evaluated other solutions. However, I just received a proposal from one of our sales associates, and the company had BigFix. They were trying to move on to SCCM. They had some questions regarding whether the same features would be available in SCCM or not. That's the reason I went to do some comparisons.

We are Microsoft partners. I'm a consultant. This solution is being used by my client's companies.

We are using the latest version of the solution, which is 2010.

I would recommend SCCM based on the requirement of the customers. However, if they are looking for Unix and Linux support, which is no longer in SCCM, I'd recommend BigFix. That solution is better for Unix and Linux.

Anybody who wants to implement SCCM should do some research online, depending upon what features they want. Once they see that SCCM will be able to manage, will be able to resolve their issues, they should choose it. However, they need to look for a partner, a Microsoft partner, that can take help from them for deployment purposes.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If the product used less resources, I would rate it higher

We are using Microsoft SCCM as the deployment platform for our environment to deploy laptops and PCs for the help desk technicians. We also use it to deploy applications and servers and provide some reports to the organization about what is currently deployed. We are using its latest version.

We do not have a big IT department, so it solves a major part of our problems and makes it easier to deploy applications, servers, PCs, etc.

It does the job and meets our needs. With everybody working remotely these days, we are using this solution to deploy everything. The deployment of PCs is easy.

It should provide the ability to remotely connect to mobile devices. There are some solutions that are doing that, but with Microsoft Intune, the only way to remotely connect to devices outside the organization and mobile devices is by using TeamViewer. It is pretty strange for a big company like Microsoft to not have something for that.

It is stable. When the applications are set up correctly, we didn't face any major problems. Most of the problems are related to DNS and other things that are outside of SCCM. They are not related to SCCM.

Currently, our business is really stable, and there is no need to increase the devices in our organization. We have six technicians who are using it currently.

We are not using any tech support outside our organization. We are handling it internally.

I have used some solutions in the past, but in our organization, there was no centralized management application before SCCM.

It is not hard to deploy and manage, but you need some knowledge of what you want to do. SCCM is strictly based on the specific configuration of the network. Therefore, you need to know the network configuration and how to use Microsoft Active Directory. If you have made a bad choice at the beginning, it will be hard to roll back and redeploy it. It works well when the environment is well configured. It doesn't really work well when the corporate network is not as good as it should be.

Its price is okay because it is part of our licensing.

I would recommend having someone to help with the deployment because the success of its deployment depends on the experience of the people who are deploying it. If you don't have enough experienced people in the internal IT department, it would be helpful to have a consultant from outside the organization to assist you.

I would rate SCCM an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for patch management.

The solution may be one of the top products from a management standpoint. It's excellent.

The solution has a very good set of features.

Its capabilities are quite robust.

Sometimes the time it takes to find the fault is a bit too long. The resolution time needs to be shortened quite a bit. There are just some analysis errors that need to be cleared up quicker in general. Otherwise, data blocks and the firewall can be affected unnecessarily.

The analysis is something that can be integrated. Their report analysis can be improved a little bit due to the fact that most of the time complaints policies are saved by the admins. It's something that we need to look into and search for. It would be nice if there was just a cohesive report of what was saved, etc. 

I've been working with the solution for about two and a half years at this point.

The stability is very good. We don't have any issues with it. It's very reliable. I'd give it five stars.

The solution is scalable. We do have options to integrate other products as well. You want to combine your MDM solution with SCCM, for example. Scalability is something I would give them five stars for.

As admins, we do have rules for distributing. Basically, to manage inventory on all those steps. In our current organization, we are connected to approximately 300 million servers.

We didn't previously use a different solution. Previous to initiating the use of SCCM, everything was pretty much a manual process.

The initial setup is not complex. I believe it is very straightforward. You can choose to do it manually or you can do it via an automation feature that is available to push everything for you. 

Depending upon how big your organization is, how the sites are spread across mainly on physical entities, on logical entities, the installation and the detection will not take much time. In most cases you can have it configured in five to ten minutes in order to detect once the reporting gets updated. That said, if there are different geographical locations, the entire process can take a day or so. 

I've had to reach out to technical support in the past and I'm satisfied with their level of service. They are very knowledgeable and responsive.

We're just a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with SCCM.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. We've been mostly satisfied with it as a product.

We have just implemented a patch management solution. We are using SCCM for the server. For the client or endpoint, we are using a different product called Ivanti.

It is a very good solution. It has a good interface and is easy to use. On top of that, it is very reliable in terms of distribution as well as getting the report.

Its client interface should be more accessible, and the notifications should be more customizable from the console. It should be more user friendly and have some kind of customized notifications so that we can use it on the client side. These are the reasons why we restricted its use only for the server environment and didn't use it on the client side.

I cannot say anything about its scalability at this time. We are still exploring this solution. We are using SCCM for the server, so only IT people use it or log into it. In terms of nodes, about 500 nodes are using the product effectively.

I have not been in touch with Microsoft in terms of support for this solution. We are good. We do have people who get support from Microsoft for any issues, but I don't remember facing any issues recently on the SCCM front. We did have a call with Microsoft because SCCM was not supporting some applications on the patch upgrade front, and we wanted to explore and know future trends. 

It is easy.

We are still exploring this solution, and we haven't yet explored all the features.

I would rate SCCM an eight out of ten. It just needs a better user interface and some kind of customizations because currently, they are very limited.

SCCM does everything from A to Z for a Windows operating system. It provides a full-featured deployment for Windows-based systems from the setup screen.

It has reduced a lot of burden from external and internal IT teams, where they have to build systems individually.

There are many features that are useful, I will mention a few of the primary ones. You have a tool that enables you to build an operating system image and deploy it to a number of devices, system patching, application deployment, compliance checking, thorough documentation for installation and it has the ability for easy policy assignment management.

SCCM supports the Windows operating system well: however, there is minimal support for Mac and none for mobile devices. Organizations that do not just go with a single operating system, having the flexibility to support more operating systems and devices would be an added advantage. This would allow them to stand out from other products on the market.

I have been using the product for approximately two years.

The solution is stable enough to manage your Windows operating system.

We use the solution for a user base of approximately 500. It is scalable.

I would say it's a bit complex. There are prerequisites which you have to install first before installing SCCM. You need a server in place, a SQL database and some other software installed separately, for example, Management Studio.

We had experienced before allowing us to install the solution ourselves by following the documents provided. It usually takes five to six hours. The time is all depending on the hardware configuration on the server and if there are good hardware installed. It could take much more time if the setup is not good or if you are new to installing these type of solutions.

We have had a lot of issues with Mac application deployment support. They need to improve the support for the Mac operating system.

There are a few licensing required. When you purchase the SCCM licence the SQL server license is included. When you compare this solution with other tools in the market you might actually find a lot of variation in the pricing and that's why people opt for the other tools rather than Microsoft tools.

Compared to other tools I would recommend SCCM as a good solution for Windows systems only for managing your systems because it provides support for server operating system as well, rather than only for the client's operating systems.

I would rate SCCM a nine out of ten but since their support for other operating systems other than Windows is limited, I rate them overall, a six out of ten.