KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) Reviews

I have deployed KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) around 230 plus PCs, and I use it to push Windows updates and scripts. I have designed various scripts for tasks such as password resets after 30 days or 45 days. I also use it to push software to all 250 PCs at once. It is different from EDR, as EDR is an endpoint management system and KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) is a unified endpoint management solution. I use it on Windows machines to block the hotspot of a particular user if needed, so that the user will not be able to use the mobile hotspot option on that Windows machine.

What I like best about KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) is that it allows pushing custom-made applications to all computers that have KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) endpoint installed. This makes it easier for the organization to push patches and updates. If I need to push EDR updates, I can use KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA), as it automatically updates the EDR on that endpoint, and that is a great feature.

Overall, KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) helps streamline my processes by allowing me to check the uptime and downtime of machines, whether they are connected to the internet or not, and how long a machine has been switched off. I can also gather hardware details and software inventory from it. I can show a live demonstration if a video conference can be arranged.

Incident resolution capabilities with KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) have improved operational efficiency for system administrators, as it makes it easier to track machines with KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA), gather their IP addresses, and push several updates, patches, or software deployments at once. I can design compliances as per my requirements, such as ensuring passwords are reset after 45 days.

For improvements in KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA), I would want to see it become a standalone software agent. I am curious about why it does not offer EDR functionality. Additionally, the dashboard could be more interactive; for example, it should provide alerts if an endpoint is vulnerable to viruses.

In addition to the lack of EDR functionality alerts, I would also want KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) to include features such as alerting me when Windows Defender detects malicious activity and providing a pop-up message when it blocks a specific file.

I have been working with KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) for two years.

KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) is stable and secure; I have attempted reverse engineering to stop services and uninstall it using command line interfaces, but it is quite secure. A user would need to format their computer to completely remove KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) functionalities or services, as I cannot stop them through CLI or GUI.

I do not use an integrator, reseller, or consultant for deployment; I only receive a user panel along with login credentials to access the portal.

Previously, I used SentinelOne EDR from Microsoft. SentinelOne EDR provides similar details, but KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) allows blocking specific Windows services that SentinelOne cannot manage, such as blocking hotspot functionality. EDR is generally more efficient for users.

The setup process for KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) is straightforward, as I just need to install the GUI setup on the Windows machine. The setup is fine, but I cannot find KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) listed in the app inventory of that endpoint; I learn about the services running for KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) instead. I am not aware of the licensing part, as I am not authorized for that and rely on the state headquarters, which handles all KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) licensing.

The initial setup is straightforward as the Delhi headquarters provides me with a user panel. I need to add my credentials and log in to manage scripts, services, and endpoints. The agent must be deployed to each endpoint first, connecting it to the dashboard with my login access. The deployment is strictly GUI-based and requires just running a setup.exe file, which is simple and requires no scripts.

I do not use an integrator, reseller, or consultant for deployment; I only receive a user panel along with login credentials to access the portal.

In terms of cost-effectiveness, considering a situation where I want to deploy KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) for just pushing updates, it is completely fine. However, apart from that, I do not find it particularly useful for daily scenarios.

Previously, I used SentinelOne EDR from Microsoft. SentinelOne EDR provides similar details, but KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) allows blocking specific Windows services that SentinelOne cannot manage, such as blocking hotspot functionality. EDR is generally more efficient for users.

I use KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA)'s software deployment feature as that is the main agenda of KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA). I use it to deploy Microsoft Office tools, and I just push it through KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA). It will automatically install on all the endpoints with KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) agent installed.

Regarding automated patch management with KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA), I can stop particular Windows updates from Microsoft by specifying the version of the update, preventing it from automatically installing on the endpoint. I can allow and deny all updates.

KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) does not provide interactive reports; it gives me endpoint details such as hostname, IP addresses, description, RAM utilization, and such simple data. It will generate a CSV file or an Excel file that I can request from KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA).

After receiving reports from KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA), I can identify the endpoints and their utilization, especially if it is higher. If any suspicious or malicious software shows up in the software inventory on that particular machine, I can inform the user to uninstall it, or I can also uninstall it using KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA).

I have not utilized KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA)'s license compliance tools, specifically for the Windows license, as I am situated at a state level. The headquarters in Delhi controls licensing, where they manage all the states' endpoints. Therefore, I need to seek permissions from the Delhi headquarters to deploy software.

From using KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA), the main benefits I have seen are that if my organization has a thousand users and I plan to distribute software such as Adobe to all endpoints, by simply launching a script in KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA), I can provide that software effectively. It is easier for me to issue software, apply any compliance, or manage security updates.

I did not personally decide to go with KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) or evaluate other options; an authorized committee determined that KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) would be useful for the organization, and I am simply deploying and managing the applications.

My advice for organizations considering KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) is that it is reliable for pushing software updates and managing endpoints. I can locate an endpoint through its description, making it easier for the Delhi headquarters and me to manage all endpoints. Additionally, I can create my own custom scripts for automation, such as implementing a lock screen banner for users. I would rate this product a 7 out of 10.

My main use case for Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) is to deploy applications and maintain security, and we use it day-to-day to handle those tasks.

With Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA), we deploy all of our system management tools, as well as standardization of applications and Microsoft updates, which helps us maintain security.

Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) has made it possible for us to manage so many machines with fewer people by allowing us to use automation to find and rectify situations on the appliances as well as for mass deployments of software.

Using Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA), we have been able to manage three times the amount of machines as other groups while having half the staff, which has positively impacted our organization.

The best features Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) offers include the scripting function, which stands out to me because I can find specific needs and deploy the applications based on those needs.

There was a time when scripting really saved me time by allowing me to find specific registry entries and modify them to patch security vulnerabilities.

Scripting has saved us hundreds of hours over the years when patching these vulnerabilities compared to how we did it before.

I really enjoy the security features that are enabled to deploy Microsoft and other vendor patches, which stand out to me as key functionalities.

I wish Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) would have a top-down approach since we use orgs; currently, we have to go into each org to deploy applications when we need them all across the university.

I have been using Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) for over 10 years.

The initial setup with Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) was very straightforward and easy to configure.

Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) is stable, and I have not had any reliability issues.

We have had to scale up Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) several times; in fact, we have outgrown the size of one KACE appliance and are now running two.

Any time I've had to reach out to customer support for Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA), they have been quick to respond and resolve the situation.

I would rate the customer support for Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) as a 10.

Positive

We previously used Microsoft System Management Services before switching to Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA).

Management overhead and pricing made us switch from Microsoft System Management Services to Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA).

The initial setup with Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) was very straightforward and easy to configure.

Over the years, I have seen a return on investment with Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA), which has saved us thousands of hours of management time.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) is that, hands down, it beat all of the others in simplicity and pricing.

We evaluated other options before choosing Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA); we looked at other Microsoft applications but found them to be not as robust.

My advice to others looking into using Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) is to compare it to other management tools and then look at what it can do for you; also, talk to other users of KACE and see how they've used it. I rate Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) a 10 out of 10.

The main use cases for Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance are touch management, software and hardware inventory, and software delivery.

The most valuable features include simplicity, which makes systems management easier and faster, especially for device management. It provides a good inventory and complete inventory management, which allows clients to access information quickly. The solution is also easy to use and offers an efficient deployment process.

The user interface needs improvement as customers have mentioned they do not like the interface since it is not an SMA-based interface and lacks a manual configuration option.

I have been selling the solution for around three years.

It is a stable product that works continuously.

The product is very scalable as it supports 10,000 thousand endpoints with just one appliance, and adding more appliances can increase the number of endpoints.

The customer service is very good, providing quick customer support in Spanish.

Positive

The initial setup is relatively easy, and on a scale of one to ten, I would rate it as an eight.

The implementation requires just one admin responsible for managing the endpoints and supporting end-users.

The return on investment is seen in the quick access to information, good inventory management, and efficient systems management. The solution is considered a very good product.

The pricing is in the middle range of the market, not too expensive but not the cheapest either.

I would recommend Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance to other businesses. 

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use the System Management Appliance and the System Deployment Appliance.

On the K1000 management appliance, we're running version 12.0.103 and on the K2000 deployment appliance, we're running version 8. Our solution is deployed through a virtual machine.

For the K1000, we push out the agents through a group policy and provisioning agent. For the K2000, which we have four of, we have them set up as virtual machines and they reach out through PXE boot, IPv4 PXE.

We use the K1000 to manage all of our machines. Currently, there are 1,626, which includes 20 Android devices. We have a complete scripting library where managed jobs are maintained, both ones that run now and case by case.

We also use it to distribute and manage software. We use it to repeal unwanted software. We use it to disable machines after a given amount of time and repeal them from Active Directory. It is utilized for Windows feature build updates, as well as tracking Windows patch management and Windows patching.

We use KACE for IT asset management, compliance, software asset management, and patch management. It can also do mobile device management, although we don't use it for that. The combination of these features in a single package is important to us. I think with the inclusion of the service desk, the ticketing station, and integration through the user interface where they can download their own software and applications at a system-wide level, I think it's a really great program. It's really hard-pressed to find all of these features in one.

Overall, it works great in terms of updating and configuring everything we need it to be for our environment. My only complaint is smart label adaptation. I do recommend a bake-in period of 24 to 48 hours to make sure everything reports, but beyond that, it's pretty seamless. You have immediate reporting. The test environments are great, and you don't have to worry about bringing a real-world solution to a real-world environment.

The K2000 system deployment appliance assists us when new machines are set up. We take brand new machines out of the box and create a complete image of them. Not only does every machine that comes in get imaged but when we have a machine that takes longer than an hour or two hours for basic repairs, we re-image it. The K2000 touches everything in our company except for Android devices.

Using KACE has definitely increased our overall IT productivity. We used to spend approximately two hours per machine, doing one machine at a time. Now we can do as many machines as we can hook up. They have an average response time of approximately 30 minutes fully loaded, fully committed to our domain, and only require a simple update to Windows to finish the process. It's a whole lot easier.

We save an hour and a half, per machine, which is exponential because we used to get one machine done every two hours, whereas now, we can do as many machines as we can hook up in 30 minutes. It saves a lot of time. We used to spend hours each day re-imaging machines and now we spend minutes per day.

My favorite features are the feature build update and managed installations. 

Using the Windows feature build update means that instead of having to do things manually or set it up through a WSUS-type environment, you can easily download the package into the K1000. From there, you can culture and cater to it and then set it up by smart labeling. Or, you can completely automate the process to where, as it checks in, you can set those intervals.

You don't have to be an advanced user. Rather, in terms of ease of use, this product is right where it needs to be. It's easy enough where a layman can do a lot of basic stuff, but it's advanced enough such that you've got to have some knowledge of what you're doing, otherwise it's just not going to work as well as you need it to. It's right on par with where it needs to be.

I have complaints about smart label adaptation and because of this, I recommend a 24 to 48 hour bake-in period. I'm not a big fan of the bake-in period, but that's going to happen because we have a two-hour report time. We've got 1,626 PCs, which means that it's just going to take time no matter what. If there is a machine that doesn't report, then it never receives that smart label.

In this case, we have what I call hanging chad, but with 1,626 machines, if we can catch 1600 of them, that's only degradation of 26. That's not bad compared to sometimes in other programs, where they don't conform at all or don't report at all.

I'm not sure what could be done to resolve this. I know that I can tell the system to report more often, but the agent reporting time of two hours is perfect because we won't have a lot of machines bogging down our infrastructure. We're running what's considered a modified MPLS and if you think about it that way, having 26 hanging chads is not terrible. The reality is that I think it's working as well as it can, given our current infrastructure.

I have been working with Quest KACE Systems Management for approximately three years.

Our K1000 currently manages 1,626 devices, 20 of which are Android devices.

We don't use the service desk feature at all. We use Zendesk, but I've been trying for years to get them to roll over and put this all in one, utilize the service desk, and just drag over what's in Zendesk into KACE. Unfortunately, I can't get them to listen.

They're hooked on Zendesk and they love the macros. This makes it hard to get them to change their process. You have to change the culture in that environment, and they're not ready to do that, yet.

The ease of use has helped to improve our return on investment. Initially, when we started with this product, I was hired to work with it. It wasn't set up the way we have it now. Over time, we got deeper into it, making it easier for the end-user but more complex for the people who need it, such as for those in administration and above. In its current state, the return on investment is pretty high.

There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

Feature-wise, I think the only one that's even come close is Workspace ONE. It seems to get really close and deep into it. We tested them out, but we determined that they were not as viable a solution compared to KACE.

This product is not a one-stop shop for everything that I need but it gets really close.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use our KACE system for imaging, deploying software, and deploying fixes to Windows computer labs. 

We don't use the active directory in our environment, so pushing out changes to local group policy is something we use our SMA for often. 

Additionally, managing over 1000 Windows endpoints of varying models and manufacturers is no easy task. Management of these endpoints involves utilizing the inventory and scripting features on the KACE SMA. 

We even use KACE SMA on our VDI infrastructure, helping to maintain and track those endpoints.

The KACE SMA has helped make our endpoint team work more agilely, efficiently, and productively. 

We're able to deploy software and push out fixes to endpoints faster than ever. 

Our turnaround times for new software installation in our numerous computer labs on campus have never been quicker. 

With KACE, as soon as a request comes in or a report of a broken bit of software, we can quickly prepare and deploy a fix with the SMAs scripting feature - which has proven invaluable to our organization. This makes my team's day easier and our clients even happier.

The Powershell support in the SMA has proven invaluable time and time again as an organization that doesn't use Active Directory. We can easily make changes to our endpoints via Powershell scripts with the SMA, empowering us to make changes to our endpoints not always capable to a non-windows shop. 

Managed installations is also a great tool. Managed installations give my team a quick and efficient way to deploy software to many computers all at once, without the need to manually go to each computer and tediously and manually install the software. 

We'd love to see support for larger dependencies in the scripting feature. We sometimes use scripting to copy large files (5GB+) to 30+ computers at a time, and having a way to do this directly through KACE without breaking up the files into smaller ZIP files would be great. 

Additionally, we'd love to see the return of the 5-second auto refresh. We've found that 30 seconds between auto-refreshes in the KACE UI is sometimes too long. 

Other than that, the SMA is a fantastic product that makes life easier and keeps clients happy!

I've used the solution for five years.

KACE is an incredibly stable product. We have had very, very few stability issues, most of which are isolated to old hardware and versions.

KACE is incredibly scalable to many, many devices.

The Quest KACE support team is the best in the business. I always come out with an answer, and the support engineers are kind and professional always. I can't speak highly enough about them.

Positive

I was initially a bit scared of the complexity of setting up the KACE environment, however, in the end, it was very easy.

I use this solution for software packages, security updates, upgrades, and asset management.

The Microsoft SCCM environment is much more robust than KACE, but obviously, Microsoft equipment or Microsoft software is very expensive, so we have decided to take a cheaper alternative. It was a Dell product and we have a Dell computer base, so it was easier. There is ease of use, and its pricing was a driving factor.

Sometimes the information is not as real time as it's supposed to be. In that scenario, they have to work with Microsoft and figure it out, because I think that's the challenge that we always come across. The information we get isn't always 100% accurate.

There could be a dynamic environment where you can select what products you're using, whether it's Dell or IBM or HPE, and it creates its own repository. When there's not much internet usage, it downloads those critical patches or firmware updates so you can push it. 

I think that kind of thing will make it much better, because I think Microsoft products are only geared toward Microsoft. I think because KACE is not a Dell product anymore, it can work as a vendor independent or vendor agnostic approach where you can select which products that you are using, which models that you are using, and based on that, it can tell you there is an update or firmware upgrade that's available for this particular product or this particular model. If I forget to research what's available on the internet and the latest firmware upgrade, the tool itself could go every night and fetch whatever is the important update or upgrades that is available, download it, and tell the admin, "In your environment, these are the things that you can upgrade." Some of the work can be automated.

I have been using this solution for about 10 years.

I would rate this solution 8 out 10.

We have to do a lot of things manually, which I don't like in a tool because  automation is the key to everything. The less human interaction that a tool can provide, the better the product will be.

I usually use it for deploying patches, as well as for inventory, and sometimes even monitoring. KACE Systems Management is deployed through physical hardware. We have two of them. We use one for desktops and laptops, and we use the other for our servers.

We are part of a university, working under the president's office. We collaborate with all six campuses and have students from all six campuses interacting with us. To fulfill their requirements, we need tools for monitoring, patch management, and for inventory. KACE Systems Management is how we keep our customers and stakeholders happy.

The solution definitely saves us time. We try to do bulk patching, whereas before, we did manual patching. We used to have four people putting in 40 hours, and now we have one person doing it in 16 hours. That's quite a savings.

In addition, it has increased IT productivity. With one person responsible for installing patches, we have freed up the other three people to take more ownership of our applications. If I had to work on patching on a manual basis, that would be the only thing I'd be doing. But because this is all automated and scripted very well, I can use my time for other projects.

Patching is definitely the most valuable feature. It gives us good, centralized software, which comes in very handy since we are doing 400 servers at a time. It enables us to manage all the servers, and to deal with the application team regarding reboots and scheduling.

On a scale of one to 10, the ease of use of the solution is definitely a nine.

The solution provides us with compliance, software asset management, mobile device management, and patch management. This combination satisfies my needs, giving me almost everything I need on this box.

The things the solution is missing are antivirus software and monitoring software. The types of monitoring I'm referring to here are calculating data, making sure the machines are up and running, CPU monitoring, data monitoring, and SLAs.

Also, I don't think they have a good cloud solution yet. We wanted to go with a cloud-based application, but they were not ready yet. That's where everybody's going. Two or three years from now, when we have to renew the contract, if management asks for a better deal it will be embarrassing to say "Yeah, we have a product that's not in the cloud." We are taking a lot of our own machines to the cloud and creating our own cloud-based solution for our customers. I would like Quest to do the same thing for us.

I've been using the KACE solution for close to 10 years.

The stability is pretty good, although it's not perfect. There are a lot of upgrades as they keep sending a lot of bug fixes. Any update or upgrade to a product that occurs more than once in a year is a lot. Quest releases two or three upgrades. So it becomes a little time-consuming, because we have to make other people aware of it and get change-control and everybody to sign off on them. Their upgrades come out quite often, a little more frequently than other applications.

We keep upgrading the solution. We keep up with Quest on their new solutions, every time they do an upgrade.

We do patching every four months, so that's our key project. At those times, we are using it every day for 16 hours a day. But the inventory base and the little bit of monitoring that it supplies, as well as the software distribution, mean that we use it on an almost a daily basis, although not that heavily, during those times.

We have about 12 administrators of the solution, but the beneficiaries from it number about 600.

I'm very impressed with their technical support. It's pretty good.

One thing that could be a little better is that, even though it's not 24/7 support, at least it should be available from nine to five in every time zone, or even better, from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM in every time zone. I can understand not being able to reach somebody at 3:00 AM, but somebody should be able to call me at seven or 8:00 AM, because that's when business starts. Sometimes, no matter how critical my application is, if my production server is down I won't be able to connect with anybody till 11:00 AM Eastern Standard Time.

Positive

I was not involved in the initial setup, but I don't think it would be that complex. I have done a lot of other setups with Quest and there are a few complications. It's not a cakewalk. The deployment took almost a week.

One of the complications is that they don't have 24/7 support, and they're also not in our time zone.

I don't have to deal with the pricing and it does get renewed automatically for us every time. But the pricing does get confusing for me. Our system is a little complicated because we have two appliances, one dealing with just the laptops and desktops, one dealing with only the servers.

There was a stage where I had to evaluate other vendors. KACE had a better GUI. The front end is user-friendly, even though the back end is Linux-based. Their format and their design were much better and much more comfortable.

I would definitely recommend using KACE. There are cons when it comes to the support and not being able to go to the cloud, and a couple of features missing, but I would definitely recommend them.

I like the solution. The things that we are using KACE for are working pretty well for us. I have had the opportunity to change vendors three times during this nine-year process, but I am comfortable with KACE. I'm not getting everything I want, but on a scale of 1 to 100, I'm getting at least 70 from KACE. So I keep signing with them.

The solution provides a single pane of glass with very close to everything I need for endpoint management of all devices. It meets my needs but for some applications we use other software, mostly for monitoring or pushing software development. But I'm happy with what I have from KACE.

I primarily use this solution to deploy software, to deploy patches, to deploy drivers, and to do software package updates. I'm not using all of the functionality that it has but another thing I do is push out Windows upgrades. Rather than doing them all at once, I push out the feature updates.

It is set up on a VMware virtual machine.

When I first joined the company, the director and the other help desk associates were going to each computer to do updates and patches. At the time, we had 274 computers in the building, and I felt that there had to be a way that it could be automated.

One of the problems is that in order to get the updates completed, we were coming in on Saturday, which meant that they had to pay us overtime to get things done. When I started digging, I realized that you could use the SDA for automatic deployments and things of that nature. I was able to configure it to do what I needed to do.

I set up certain floors to be deployed during the night. The schedule was to complete 30 or 40 computers a night until they were finished. Then, when my director came to ask how the progress was, and I told him that the job was complete, he was shocked. It used to take them between two and three months to do the same thing.

Especially with the pandemic, where one day I have an employee in the office to work but the next day I don't, Quest has been instrumental in completing these tasks. With a couple of mouse clicks, I can get the job done.

The single pane of glass for managing devices is helpful because it allows me to perform updates and control things without having to disturb the doctors or nurses. The update process is transparent to them.

This solution provides us with IT asset management, software asset management, compliance, and patch management. This combination of features is important to us because we are able to perform all of these tasks without interrupting anybody's workflow. The most important thing is that we don't want to interrupt a doctor when they are with a patient and without Quest, if something critical needs to happen then I might have to wait to get into the office. During this time, the system could be vulnerable. Using a system with all of these capabilities and being able to use it after hours is key in IT.

The system makes it easy to update and configure things in our environment. If you get stuck then there are well-thought-out KBs available, and you can also ask people in the community. Personally, it has made my job easier. It's not as hands-on and it's more auditable.

Quest has absolutely saved me time, which I would estimate to be between two and three hours a day, easily. With the automations, things flow the way I need them to flow. When Windows updates come out on Tuesday, rather than deploying them on the weekend, we deploy them to all of the computers every Thursday. Because there is no more work to do on the weekends, it saves the company money, especially in overtime.

The automation helps on both ends. For one, you don't have the labor costs that you have to pay for in overtime. A lot of the things that we used to have to do by hand, I can now automate through the system. Then, at the same time, the work is getting done at the time you set it for. There is no "people factor", where they may not move as fast as expected. It happens, for example, that as people get tired, they get slower. Automation greatly diminishes the time that we spend going from one desk to the next. When I do it with the click of a button, everything is going to be done at that exact moment. 

The most valuable feature is the ability to deploy Windows features during off-hours times, through all of the machines at one time versus trying to systematically do them either by area or by floor. I can set one floor to automatically update on Thursday, the next one on Friday, the next one on Saturday, and so forth until I get everybody done. Doing it this way doesn't negatively impact my productivity, nor does it affect anybody else. Updates can be done in the middle of the night.

Using this system is pretty straightforward. When I first joined the company and started using it, a lot of it for me was reading the knowledge base to find out what it was capable of doing. Originally, the only things that they were using it for were popups and ticketing. When I took over, I started the software deployment, driver deployment, updates, and those types of things.

I still don't use the system to its full potential but I now use at least 90% of it.

The systems deployment appliance (SDA) is one of the main features that I use on a regular basis. A lot of the time, I won't do a feature update using the software deployment function. Instead, I will build an image on the SDA. That way, as I need to deploy it, I can do so at will. It gives me the ability to deploy to 10 machines at a time, which means that I can complete most of the stuff that I need to do over a period of time. It's as easy as can be; I'd say that it's as simple as cutting butter.

I would like to be able to deploy an image to more than 10 computers at a time. When we have to do a rebuild on these machines, although it is rare, I would like to be able to do more than 10 at a time. With the current limit, it slows me down because I have to set up 10, then the next 10, and so forth.

My client started working with Quest KACE Systems Management in 2014 but personally, I began using it in 2016.

I have not had a problem other than just recently when I started having issues with a library and a few of the files being corrupted. But, whenever I've called technical support, they've been generally on the spot for getting things fixed, and getting me back up and running. As such, it hasn't really affected my environment much.

My downtime, the first time they had to fix it, was about a day. The most recent time, I wasn't down but I could tell that they were working. Overall, the issue with corrupted files hasn't affected me.

In an environment like this, where you can't afford to be down, it is critical that you have premium support. It is definitely a factor that should be considered when purchasing other products.

The scalability is fantastic. You can add to it and there are lots of things that you can do but it's overkill for us at the clinic.

There were two of us administering the solution and there are about 274 endpoints. Since the other administrator recently quit, it is only me doing the job at the moment.

The technical support people are awesome. In the beginning, I dealt with a few of them that seemed like they just didn't want to be there, so I just would hang up with those people. Lately, in the last couple of years, I have not had any problems. Everybody I've dealt with has been happy to be on the call and glad to help.

We use Quest premium support and the biggest thing that stands out to me is that it's available 24-7. Sometimes, things will happen outside of the eight to five range and when it does, I need that ability to be able to call them and get someone on the phone. That's the major value for us.

There are other pluses with premium support but given that we have moved it from a physical appliance to a virtual appliance, right now it's just the 24-7 support that is important for us. Having the premier support had added value to our overall investment with Quest. It's worth what you pay for it because they are literally there. In a mission-critical system, such as a clinic, you can't have wait periods of two to four hours before technical support starts working on the problem. When a patient system or a lab system is down, you can't wait around for somebody to figure out if and when they're going to call you.

They did not use a similar solution prior to Quest KACE.

When the person who set up Quest first joined the company, he wanted to modernize things. People were leaving post-it notes or written notes on everyone's desk, and he wanted to implement a system to improve the clinic's way of doing business.

When he implemented the system, he implemented it with Active Directory to make it more fluent so that when something happened, they didn't have to go from one desk to the next desk.

I was not with the company for the initial setup, although I have spoken with people about it. What I have been told is that when the system was first purchased, they paid for support to help walk them through the setup. I have not heard that it was difficult but I do recall that it took some time to get everything configured.

We purchased KACE through a reseller, Netrix.

It was deployed in-house by my former director, with assistance from technical support. At that time, it was Dell technical support.

One person is enough for maintenance because it is not hard at all. Click a button and it's updated. You also have to make sure that your host is updated. It's pretty simple.

If I was on the outside looking in, where I had never dealt with it before, based on everything it does I would think it is quite complicated to operate and keep functional. It's definitely the opposite of that.

Our clinic's ROI is a saving in time and money. Prior to having this solution, we were sometimes in a position where there would be three of us working on it, and we'll all be working overtime. When you take that away, it is a big saving. For example, I have been here for five years and if I were putting in two weekends a month over the entire time, it is a lot of money that has been saved.

In terms of pricing and licensing, my advice is that you need to assess what you need and then look at what they offer. It's easy to get caught up in the things that you want, but don't really need. You really want to assess what's best for your environment and to plan it very well.

Ideally, if there is a project manager available then they should help with the planning because you want your end goal to be in line with what you are trying to do. A reseller will try to sell you everything under the sun, so it's important that you plan well and know what is required in your environment. 

I don't believe that the company evaluated other products. My understanding is that the reseller we used made the recommendation and we went with that.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to take your time. I suggest doing it on a Saturday but if your production is in an area that can't be down because you have to sync with Active Directory, then choose a time where you won't interfere with anybody's ability to work. It may require rebooting your DC and that is something that can't be done without affecting people in your environment.

For organizations running two DCs, it probably won't affect them at all. However, in our situation, where we use single sign-on, we really want to make sure that any downtime doesn't affect our users.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this solution is to read the knowledge base.

We had a transitionary period where I was taking over and my director was leaving. The system needed to be updated but part of the system was not paid for. Once it was updated, I found out that they no longer support physical servers, so we had to move it to a VM. That was a bit cumbersome but the important part that I learned is to keep your licenses current. If they expire because you are behind in paying for them then it puts you in a more difficult position when you renew.

Overall, this is a good solution that saves us time and effort. Other than the limit of having only 10 images deployed at once, I don't see anything else that I want to improve. I control everything through VMware and I'm pretty good at it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We have KACE SMA and KACE SDA. The SMA is to image all of our desktops. There are 3,000 desktops, and we use KACE SMA for Windows imaging and security patching and updates. We're using KACE SDA for our software library, so our client base can go to the software library and install software from there. We're using the support component and the trouble ticket system.

It increases security. We can target any machine or any device that is connected to it and update security if there is a vulnerability that comes out, especially this day of cyber attack. If we're notified by a vendor of vulnerabilities, we can push out an update within minutes. It has really increased the security of the network.

It is easy to use and pretty intuitive. It is pretty much a GUI interface. Its ease of use has affected the time to value because we can get our staff quickly up to speed on all of the components and how to support it best. Because it has a graphical user interface and is easy to use, it really decreases the training time and increases our efficiency in implementing things.

It provides a single pane of glass for everything that we need for endpoint management of all our devices, which has made things more secure. It gives us full visibility into every endpoint device that has the KACE agent on it.

It saves a lot of time. It has probably saved us a good month of person-time a year. It also saved a lot of training and a lot of lost productivity, not only for the technical staff but also for the staff, students, and faculty.

We also use KACE SDA, and it is fantastic for automating our deployments. We can literally push out an image to all 3,000 desktops at the same time and have everything imaged and done within three hours.

All of the features are valuable. We find everything we're using very valuable because they increase security and efficiency.

It is excellent in terms of updating and configuring everything the way we need. For anything more complex, we do professional service engagements, and they're exceptional. For anything less complex, we just need to ask questions. Their support division is extremely good too.

If we have any issues, we've had great success with their professional services team and their support team. Their technical support is excellent. They're very responsive and fast. Within an hour of initiating a support request, we've got somebody on it.

The only pain point I have is with their salespeople. They call too often. They're too aggressive in trying to upsell. We know what we need, and we know if we want to expand. I don't mind quarterly calls from them, but sometimes, it is weekly. They need to get their sales team under control. The main goal of their support people and professional services is to make sure they deliver the service, and they deliver it well, whereas their salespeople are so interested in making a sale that they're wasting my time. 

We did look at MDM, and I was misguided by their salespeople. When I talked to their tactical people, I found out that I hadn't been given the full picture on MDM, and it wouldn't have been what we wanted if we had moved forward with it. I really value their technical services, their professional services, and their support services, but their sales team needs to really up their game and not phone every week.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is extremely stable. We've never had any downtime. There has never been any unexpected downtime with the KBOX, SDA, or SMA. They just seem to be extremely robust.

We're asking for it to be scalable for up to 10,000 end-user devices. When we purchased it, it was for 3,000 with scalability of up to 10,000. We haven't tried to scale up that much yet, but they say we're sized appropriately for that.

We use Quest's Premier Support for KACE solutions. The biggest value of having Premier Support is the response time. Their response time is phenomenal. We've never created a support ticket that they haven't responded to within an hour and resolved. They're professionals. Their support team is extremely knowledgeable. 

Their Premier Support has added value to our overall investment in the Quest solution. Their responsiveness and their technical skillsets are amazing.

Their Premier Support had an influence in purchasing additional licenses or additional products from Quest. We decided to customize the support desk component because the first implementation of just the standard SMA stuff was so good. We also implemented a Request for Change and a custom Request for Service based on how greatly satisfied we were with the KBOX, their support, and their professional services. If it wasn't for all of those three things, we wouldn't have looked at expanding.

We used Microsoft Deployment Toolkit (MDT). It just wasn't scalable enough for us, and it also wasn't customizable enough for us.

We used SCCM as well. It is much more complex, and it takes a lot of end-user training. That's why we decided to go with KACE.

After using other products, we want to stay with KACE. Earlier, we had a separate Request for Change application and a separate support system. We merged all those into KACE. It saved us a lot of money and a lot of time, and everything is central for our client base. They go to one spot in the self-service user portal, and everything is right there. This consolidation has probably saved us a couple hundred thousand a year. It is hard for us to do money points because anything that's Microsoft, such as MDT, SCCM, we get free through the Department of National Defense Microsoft Enterprise agreement. For us, there are no costs.

It was straightforward, but we did engage professional services.

In terms of the implementation strategy, we wanted the support component configured for all of our different support queues. We were asking for customizations, and it took about two weeks for the professional services person to implement them based on our requirements, but out of the box, everything is easy. We just had a bunch of customizations made.

We engaged professional services.

We have seen a return on investment. It is the fact that my IT staff can come quickly up to speed on the KACE appliance. It doesn't require a lot of in-depth training. It is fast to implement and get people trained on and able to support. It is also fast to get end-users using the self-service portal.

Based on other solutions that we had implemented, its pricing seems to be quite competitive. It is not inexpensive, but it is also not more expensive than any other solution. They have the standard licensing fees and support fees.

We evaluated several other solutions, including support desk solutions, and we settled on KACE just because of their ability to customize what we need. Their professional service is excellent, and so is their support, so we decided to go with KACE.

We found other municipal companies in the area that were using it, and we went and met with them to get their use cases and their experience. If anyone is looking into using it, I would recommend talking to people who have implemented it and seeing if it's going to meet their needs. I highly recommended it as a chosen solution, just for the fact that it's end-to-end. It's extremely robust and reliable, and their professional services and their support teams are stellar.

I would rate Quest KACE Systems Management a 10 out of 10.

We use Quest KACE Systems Management for things like deploying software packages, inventorying, and versioning what we currently have.

For me, specifically, the use case is for package deployment. When I need to push out a new package. We use a new 8x8 client, or I have Chrome set to update, and if it doesn't, we'll post it here. We use this solution to push packages because we don't have an SCCM solution or anything similar that I am more familiar with.

SCCM is a Microsoft solution, which is now known as MECM.

Right now, it's just a stopgap until we can set up and configure a proper environment. This product was acquired and brought over from an acquisition. As a result, there is some net overlapping and other issues that prevent it from being fully integrated everywhere, and there is a problem with firewall separation. 

It helps in some ways, and for the most part, it makes my life easier. It doesn't seem to hit everywhere.

I like how when you click on the device, it shows you everything that has changed as well as the software versioning. I am really enjoying the inventory aspect of it.

The deployment process for both deploying and creating a package is straightforward.

I believe the inventory in KACE is superior to SCCM's. 

I know with SCCM I could do things like remote console into machines via the agent's remote console, but that is not a feature that is provided in KACE. I know that at least in the Systems Management Appliance, I can't get to it.

I'm not sure how distribution works, with distribution points. I'm not sure if KACE has that feature. You could use an SCCM to set up distribution points at remote sites so that they don't have to download patches or software from across the country. If you have a DP or something similar, they could pull it down.

With KACE, you have to use smart labels and groups, and it can be annoying. It's aggravating if you don't know what you're doing because you have to figure out how to do it.

In terms of improvement, I would recommend the labeling process, also known as label management. With  SCCM, you have collections, here they do Label management.

The labeling process should be more streamlined. It should be easier to do. It gets confusing at times.

The only issue I have is with label creation.

I have been using Quest KACE Systems Management for nine months.

We are not working with the latest version. I don't see a way of determining the version, but It wouldn't be the most recent because even the application catalog is out of date, and the company decided not to purchase a new software catalog.

I believe that it is hybrid because I'm aware of a machine that checks in but isn't in our environment. It's a machine that was given to an employee and was never re-imaged. I'm aware that the client logs in from time to time. They have to re-image it to remove the agent, and then it will stop popping in. As a result, it's a hybrid.

I'm not very familiar with it. I was never taught how to do it. 

Everything I learned from experimenting with it for tasks that were assigned to me. There was no training.

I believe that once the agent is installed on a machine, it is very reliable. It easily tells you when it last logged in. You don't have to search for it. Aside from the labels, I believe it would be a great tool to use if properly configured with proper access everywhere.

We have approximately 800 employees with 67 to 71 data centers.

We don't have a lot of machines in there for scalability. We only have about 300 or 400 people out of a total of 12 or 13. I can't respond to that. 

We had 7,000 employees in the last environment I worked in, and SCCM handled it all with the 300 or 400 domain controllers we had. I can't comment on this because we don't have a large enough environment.

We have 200 or 300 users in our organization.

It is not being extensively used because it is only hitting approximately 30% of the machines. Because this is pushing toward workstations. 

I don't believe that we have plans to increase our usage. That's why we started looking for a third party. I don't think they're heading for KACE. I believe they're discussing BigFix right now, but that's a different department, and we could be drawn into that.

I have never had to contact technical support.

We use an internal application. For ticketing or our change management process, we don't use any solutions such as ServiceNow, Remedy, or Magic.

I'm not involved in networking. I work in internal IT. As a result, they use Palo Altos and Ciscos.

WSUS and KACE are currently in use.

At my previous job, I used SCCM, System Center Configuration Manager.

I was not involved with the initial setup. I came to it in the state that it's in.

I am responsible for the maintenance of this solution. It does not require a lot of maintenance. It is truly low-maintenance. However, we do not send patches via KACE. We use WSUS to distribute patches. If there isn't anything for me to do in KACE, there isn't anything for me to do. If there isn't a new package coming out, maintenance is minimal, and the agent is pushed using a GPO, leaving nothing to do until we deploy agents, which is handled by the GPO.

I was only looking for something to patch our internal workstations and servers, not anything for customers.

I would suggest taking a training course. Take a training course on its fundamental administration. That would've been nice because it would've probably helped me with label creation and other things like that. Even though the KBE isn't too bad, you'll need to figure out who has the account in order to log into their knowledge base.

I would give it an eight out of ten, but I haven't seen everything it's capable of. And the reason I say that is because I have 10 years of SCCM experience. I love SCCM, this isn't as bad, but I can't really compare this to that. 

I really like what I am seeing, I would rate Quest KACE Systems Management an eight out of ten. I can't rate it any higher than that.