We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why
Get our free report covering Microsoft, VMware, JAMF, and other competitors of VMware Workspace ONE. Updated: January 2022.
563,148 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of VMware Workspace ONE alternatives and competitors

Associate Architect-Information Security at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
Unified endpoint management that has the flexibility of stand-alone components
Pros and Cons
  • "This product offers an alternative solution to other UEM (Unified Endpoint Management) solutions."
  • "Maturity makes it a stable product."
  • "The reporting needs to be a bit more interactive."

What is our primary use case?

We are VMware and Microsoft partners, so we offer services around their products.  

We are using Intune internally but we are leveraging it for our customers as well. That is a different story. One part of Intune is within our company, but we are also providing services around Intune and Workspace One for our customers.  

For us, Intune is on the public cloud. For our clients, it depends on the requirements and it varies from customer to customer. Some clients' requirements are deployed in private cloud mode or the hybrid setup. It depends. Requirements differ from industry to industry. If a company is BFSI (Banking, Financial Services, and Insurance), then they will be looking for a private cloud solution. If it is something which is not BFSI or maybe some industrial interest, they might go with the public cloud.  

In the end, most of our instances are in the public cloud unless there is some compliance requirement. Otherwise, the accounts are mostly in the public cloud to conform to regulations.  

Intune is used essentially to facilitate the ability of enterprise organizations to manage their endpoints. It is for end-user computing or UEM (Unified Endpoint Management) solutions.  

How has it helped my organization?

One of the major advantages of using Intune is for our ISO (International Organization for Standardization) certification. We have to meet requirements for ISO 27001 and 27002 and part of that is that we need to have a proper control mechanism for endpoints and the users who are using those endpoints. The other requirement is that we need to manage the workforce. We have to manage their time to understand how long they have been working, how long their device was on, when they were working, et cetera. So we use some other products that compliment Intune to gather the data on that.  

For example, we have something called Time Doctor. We use it to monitor how long people have been working. We get reports that detail how long their devices have been on. Then there are different ways we can leverage these results and statistics. For example, we can compare the uptime of the device and uptime of Time Doctor. With that, we can understand how long an employee was working on something, but how much more time the machine was up in addition to the work period. That shows the period of time that he or she was not using Time Doctor.  

The other thing is we can remotely access a device. For example, say we have to do some troubleshooting because a user is having an issue. We can remotely log in via Intune to troubleshoot the issue, as long as the device is accessible. Obviously, that can only happen if there is no issue with the internet and connectivity and services. But we can remotely access the device and troubleshoot the issue securely.  

Those are some of the different use cases.  

What is most valuable?

I guess in our company we are using most of the features in Intune. What we use it for is to control the endpoints. We publish some selected applications and the end-users are only able to download and install those applications. They are not allowed to install or use any other applications other than what we provide. We do compliance checking. We run assessments periodically on the endpoints using Intune, and Intune generates reports. Sometimes we need those reports to qualify for our ISO certifications.  

It is a similar thing for customers as well. There is a different requirement but it is a similar idea. For example, if we are engaged with an oil and gas company, they have back-office stations and point-of-sale solutions. In this case, those are Windows systems. What they used to do is they had to manage those solutions manually. They had a contract with some third party. The third-party would go on the sites if there was an issue or something, and maintenance and delivery were all manual. They did not have any EMS (Endpoint Management Solution) at all. The only thing they had was something called a radiant configuration management server. That was only used for configuration purposes, not for maintenance or other troubleshooting.  

The concern and the requirement over delivery was raised because of COVID. No one was able to go to the sites to do the troubleshooting, maintenance, and delivery. The only solution that they had was to engage with us to deploy these solutions on their endpoints. They did not all go with Intune, some went with Workspace One, which is also a UEM solution. So they wanted us to deploy UEM on AWS public cloud, then connect it, wire their MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching) network to the end-point spots and box devices in order to manage them.  

What needs improvement?

The generic answer to what can be improved is that I hope that the reporting needs to be a bit more interactive.  

For how long have I used the solution?

In our company, we have been using Intune for the past three years.  

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I think Intune has been in the market for a long time now. That maturity makes it pretty much stable because it has been through so many iterations.  

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Until now, we did not have any concern with respect to scalability within whatever we have done either for our organization or for our clients. We have done installations for bigger companies, for smaller workforces within bigger companies, but not for the larger endpoints. We do not know how well it scales in every direction and if scaling will cause any problems. We have not come across those things.  

In our organization, we probably have 250 to 300 people who are using the product. We will probably increase that usage in the future, but it depends. We were planning to introduce Microsoft ATP with Intune for advanced threat protection, which compliments the security part. Because Intune does not have advanced threat protection capabilities on its own this resolves that issue. There may be other considerations in the future that influence the importance of Intune to what we need it for and how we proceed.  

How are customer service and technical support?

We are Microsoft partners and we have a different support model with Microsoft than a typical client will. We have not had any issues with our support team and they have worked well with us up to this point. We have a different channel than the partners who need to communicate with Microsoft another way.  

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

It is a tricky thing to answer exactly what I have used that either was prior to or a substitution for Intune. That depends on different things and factors. First of all, Workspace One is definitely highly scalable, that I know. Workspace One also has a lot of integration options wherein we can have a lot of peripheral tools. Workspace One actually started with only UEM, but it is now not limited to UEM only.  

Intune, is only a UEM. So Workspace One has one integration as UEM, but it has many other things. Apart from that, it has Workspace One Intelligence, it has Workspace One Assist, et cetera. There are four different parts that can be integrated with Workspace One and they can work together for a highly scalable, highly secure, and highly analytical solution.  

Microsoft also has solutions. It is just that they are different solutions implemented in a different way. For example, ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) Microsoft is for advanced threat protection. WAD is for virtual desktops. They do not have the same type of tight integrations as Workspace One. All of these Microsoft products work separately. In Workspace One, all the products compliment each other and all the products can be combined more like modules under Workspace One. They can push their findings to Workspace One Intelligence where all data intelligence can be done. Auto remediation can be done. We can get findings from VMware because now Workspace One security is there to make sure that this is secure under the umbrella. VMware Carbon Black is also the same in that it can send its findings to Workspace One Intelligence. So the integration is the part that is handled differently. Workspace One has many features. Microsoft also has those features. It is just that it is a different way to orchestrate. In Microsoft, it is not under one umbrella. In VMware, that is under one umbrella, which is Workspace One.  

The pros and cons are different because both approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages. Both have solutions for each of the functions. For example, each has advanced threat protection and all those capabilities. If you stay working with that family of solutions, you do not have a problem.  

Now say, for example, a company went with Workspace One because they wanted to leverage UEM. They adopted some other modules as well with it to create solutions for problems or needs that they want to solve. They have to have Workspace One for this solution and they can not work with it separately. That might be a cost factor because they can not work with one tool only, they have to make the license for two products because they do not work separately.  

For Microsoft, since the products are completely separate, customers can choose which one to go with and only use that. They can go with only one product, or they can add any of the others. They do not need to have the central component to bring them together.  

So that might be an advantage or disadvantage in using one product or the other depending on the use case.  

How was the initial setup?

We did not experience any complexity in the initial deployment and there was no problem with the installation, I do not think. The complexity definitely depends on what you are trying to accomplish. I do not remember exactly because I do not directly deal with deployment anymore. I am actually leading it. We have a team that deploys the product. I do not look over their shoulder to know how much time it takes exactly and what factors it requires for successful deployment.  

What about the implementation team?

We did the deployment by ourselves without the help of consultants or vendors, that I know. We are system integrators. We have the capabilities to do things for customers. We did it ourselves. The only thing is, we have a separate team for the Microsoft product installations. Especially for something like Microsoft Intune, we need to have a special expertise. Something called Microsoft Windows, virtual desktops, all of that needs someone to install it who is intimate with the application. Microsoft Azure is something that can be used for different Microsoft technologies and solutions. We have a different team that we will put on the implementation of these products depending on the requirements.  

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing for Microsoft Intune is reasonable. Our clients are satisfied.  

What other advice do I have?

If someone is looking to have a more integrated result, they are looking for many other things like EDR (Enhanced Data Detection and Response). It is probably better to go with Workspace One because they have that under one banner. Obviously, if there is something under one banner, the integrations are simple, they are seamless, and they complement each other.  

I do not think I will have a good answer for what advice to give because technically I have not used Intune myself for some time now. I have a team that works under me for this. I am at an architect-level position now. My perspective reflects that.   

On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate Intune as an eight at least if you are only talking about a UEM solution. Personally, I am not very concerned about the reporting part, so I will consider it at eight. But if someone is looking for extensive reporting detail that is easy to understand. Interactive reporting that will give them better-tuned results, then obviously the rating might go down.  

The only thing which I see that can be done to raise this product from an eight is to package Intune as a product under one umbrella. If that were to happen, it covers the whole of end-user computing and security solutions.  

At the moment, these are two separate things when using Intune. There may be another way to accomplish this under the one umbrella if you go with Intune. For example, if there is an add-on within Intune to leverage containerized security, auto containment, and all those things. This would be a more flexible solution if that were the case. At the moment, Intune is not required to be installed as a client. As a client in the system, it can communicate with servers and do some auto containments, endpoint detection, and response. If there was a separate solution that could be added as a paid solution to create the umbrella, you have created both solutions simultaneously.  

The main reason this problem came into the picture was because of this COVID pandemic. IT teams and security teams do not go well together normally. There has to be one solution which can offer both. It can be for both IT architects, IT technical support, and security support. That is the solution that can be leveraged for both security and end-user computing. It is simple.  

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: partner
Abbasi Poonawala
Vice President Derivatives Ops IT at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Patch and upgrade many devices simultaneously in a DevSecOps pipeline which is effective but demanding on resources
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable in Desktop Central is the way it is tightly coupled with the rest of the modules and the entire gamut of ManageEngine."
  • "The performance sometimes lags a bit because the solution is demanding on system resources."
  • "The pricing is lower than other well-respected solutions in this category."

What is our primary use case?

I am certified for two of the modules of ManageEngine. I am a certified associate for AD Manager Plus (Active Directory Management) and I also have the certification for Desktop Central. Desktop Central is a management module used to manage devices and services from one location.  

To manage a large number of users and devices and push upgrades and patches, we need a solution that allows us to do that in an efficient way. We can do this with Microsoft Active Directory. That would be our primary use case for this solution. There are other things that we do with it.   

If we want to track an incident more closely to do some root-cause analysis, Desktop Central can help us with this.  

If I have a large group or area of a company that extends into EMEA (Europe, the Middle East, and Africa) and APAC (Asia-Pacific) and maybe LATAM (Latin America) that is on Windows 7 and I want to upgrade multiple devices to Windows 10, I can plan for these upgrades and do them simultaneously. Desktop Central has certain use cases within IT, Ops, and DevSecOps (security as a part of software development and IT operations) roles. Using these you can build a DevSecOps pipeline using Desktop Central.  

In the case of a well-formed pipeline, the Ops is given the liberty to do the releases rather than having to get IT involved at multiple locations. With minimal help, the Ops can do the releases on their phone, they just have to define the release and the release goes out smoothly without any IT intervention. The automation process can be built out this way to give technical control to non-technical users. We built our own platform for doing that from scratch. But the technology matured and there are more options available from vendors to solve these issues. We chose to deploy Desktop Center as our dedicated solution.  

How has it helped my organization?

It has greatly simplified updating and patching within our systems.  

What is most valuable?

From my hands-on experience, the features I have found the most valuable in Desktop Central is the way it is tightly coupled with the rest of the modules and the entire gamut of ManageEngine. So if I want to collect data about who the users are on the system, I can pull that from the Active Directory. The AD Workbench is a dashboard that gives all the data about the users enterprise-wide.  

Desktop Central has got a dedicated mobile device management module. ManageEngine has got the complete gamut of offerings. It has got asset management, service management, and asset classification. It can do any kind of patch management. It is best at the general management of assets and reporting.  

For example, we can use it for virtually anything having to do with security on endpoints. Say we have maybe 4,000-plus devices that we have to monitor and upgrade the OSS (Operations Support Systems) and apply patching. This can all be handled with Desktop Central from a central location. That is what makes it a very good option.  

Desktop Central manages pushing upgrades to endpoints and how to securely manage those endpoints. That is how it is most useful.  

What needs improvement?

The product has several places where there is room for improvement.  

Although it is on the cloud, sometimes the performance is slower than it should be. One of the reasons could be that it is tightly integrated and tight coupled with the rest of the modules and all of them have to be in sync. This syncing takes time and resources. When I go to our Desktop Central console, sometimes it runs slowly. So performance is one place where it could have room for improvement.  

In terms of patching, which is a major benefit of the package, patch management can work even better as well. The vulnerabilities are obvious. Every day we get reports on a lot of new vulnerabilities. It is clear that ManageEngine is doing the patching and the package is easily deployed once they are developed and available. The incident management, the root cause, the planning of the resolution, the service management — all these things are known and available. The team at ManageEngine is good at that. But they do not provide reports to user admins on the development and delivery which is information they already have and admins could use. Once the patch is added to the repository the defense against vulnerabilities improves. But the information about developments and vulnerabilities would be good to have and could be shared more candidly.  

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with Desktop Central since February 2020, so that is about six months now.  

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The product is constantly being upgraded by the vendor for any known issues with some features or some bugs. That kind of stability issue will always be temporary.  

There can be minor bugs that linger because they are not affecting operational issues, but even these can be escalated for fixing. We can get it fixed through the support and the product team for that. We talk directly to the product team if we feel something is important. It can happen over the phone, or it can happen by email. The entire product team has got different account managers for each of their customers. We can go directly to the team professionals that we need and get a bug fix and get it applied.  

Although Desktop Central is performing well, it sometimes experiences lag because of the resources available. The CPU and memory available might be temporarily low. Desktop Central needs a lot of resources to perform its services and syncing.  

Overall we have not had any serious, lingering issues with stability.  

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have not had any issues overall with any type of scalability. Right now we might have more than 12,000, 15,000-plus users spread across the geography. We can add more.  

All the service management gets taken care of by Desktop Central, which monitors everything. So if you need to expand services you configure this in Desktop Central. There are business KPIs (Key Performance Indicators), so it is KPI driven. How many incidents we are expecting, how much we can scale and all these system variables can be driven by business KPIs.  

Quest Office has a product called Foglight that has been used for quite a long time to order business KPIs. There are two different types of KPIs: the business KPIs, and then the functional or technical KPIs. So those are all integrated with Desktop Central from Foglight.  

We have incident management through Alacrity which is made by a different segment of BMC Software which has also got the product called Remedy. Alacrity is something similar.  

Within Desktop Central there is a production management function that is at the core of the application. When we configure Alacrity to care for incident management or Foglight to manage KPIs, this becomes integrated with the Desktop Central modules.  

We can tightly integrate other applications to the Desktop Central solution and expand out what it oversees and interacts with.  

If the workload increases, we can scale services easily on the cloud or make other plans for enhancing our architecture.  

How are customer service and technical support?

I am quite satisfied with the customer support. They have bigger support teams available and the routing to the proper people and resources is quite good. They have support out of different cities, so they 'follow the sun' from the perspective of support and the availability is quite good all the time.  

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

VMware was our solution at first. It was a PaaS (Platform as a Service) offering with built-in security and a part of vCloud Air. Workspace ONE was on the top of that. It was the first real desktop virtualization. Like Citrix, it gives you VDI (Virtual Desktop Infrastructure). With that, VMs can easily be managed through Workspace ONE and integrated VDIs.  

If I already have VMware and vSphere as my core backbone for the virtualization strategy in the organization, I might also look at automation for deploying updates. If I have a containerized application that is not automated, I can build in the automation using the DevSecOps pipeline or I can look for another solution. If you want to do the DevSecOps pipeline in the VMware workspace, you can do that with vRealize automation.  

VMware, compared to Desktop Central, is far more expensive. Desktop Central has got a license and pricing advantage similar to your windows update and Windows WUSP (Windows Update Services: Client-Server Protocol). That is your Windows update platform. With Desktop Central, you pay something similar to that. It is only a few dollars per license per user.  

Switching to Desktop Central was a matter of having an opportunity to make a switch, keeping aware of the developments in the technology and on the market, and moving to a product that was cheaper and had the capabilities that we needed to carry out the task.   

How was the initial setup?

Our process and roll out for doing the setups are pretty easy. We have managed to gain familiarity with the product and created a pretty smooth process for the installations.  

I have installed a lot of modules by myself, like EDI Manager, and I even installed Desktop Central. We run tests until we are satisfied that these two modules are installed correctly and this usually does not take much time.  

What about the implementation team?

We do not necessarily handle the setup and deployment totally by ourselves. We stay connected to the managing and support team. There are different product teams within the managing team. There is one for EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) Manager, there is one for Desktop Central, there is another one for the service management. There are many different parts at the support team level. Most of the installations do not require assistance but we can consult support when required. They will help us cope with any sticking point and we can move on from there.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Desktop Central can be less expensive than other solutions like VMware for managing DevSecOps. You have to pay per asset with Desktop Central and the final cost depends on how many assets you have across the organization. Per asset, the license cost will be less than using a more expensive license for VMware and vRealize. I think per desktop it might be somewhere around $50 or $100 each using ManageEngine.  

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

This is the only product I have in mind for this type of solution currently, although we have not evaluated Sophos yet. After that, there is only Citrix and VM Workspace ONE. Citrix is the oldest vendor we have had since Citrix MetaFrame Presentations Server days. At that time they were using screen sharing on desktops, RDPs (Remote Desktop Protocol), and still using all those older technologies. So that is too old as a solution. Desktop Central is doing much better things and has advanced well beyond that solution.  

What other advice do I have?

My advice to people looking into this solution is that if you want to improve on the patching processes as a part of a DevSecOps pipeline, Desktop Central can help you do that. It will help you make that workflow easier and it is a better option than other solutions. So this works out to be a better because everything is built-in. You do not have to integrate with any other company's portal or any other incident management or tracking.  

If you plan for a patch, there are different tools to use, different notifications to set for the patch, and they can be administered within Desktop Central itself. So the admin can approve it and once the notification changes, the patch can be released to the endpoints. That works pretty fast. That built-in workflow makes it more productive and easier to use.  

On a scale from one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Desktop Central higher than the VMware and Citrix Workspaces. The workflows are much better and easier, and the different roles for IT and Ops are well defined. So I would rate somewhere around seven.  

It is a seven because it still has got some room for improvement, but I think seven is good.  

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Senior Technical Consultant at Softcell Technologies Limited
Reseller
Stable, easy to install, feature-rich, and provides one of the best cloud services available
Pros and Cons
  • "I am most excited about a feature that is called User-Initialed Enrollment."
  • "The response time for support could be significantly improved."

What is our primary use case?

As an organization, we are resellers, we provide services to our clients, and we work on various government and manufacturing projects.

We provide consultancy, as well as our services for both Jamf Pro and Apple products.

We also offer assistance if they encounter any problems with the integration of Apple products.

What is most valuable?

When I first started using this product, there were a couple of features that still excite me because there was no scope to address those issues. And these features completely eliminate some of our previous issues.

I am most excited about a feature that is called User-Initialed Enrollment.

I also like the Composer feature, which is a unique feature.

Snapshot is one of the tools that allows any package, container, or package creator to find a way to work with various applications. 

I really liked the Self Service applications as well. It is very convenient and useful.

What needs improvement?

The response time for support could be significantly improved.

I have some customers who are struggling to get a response.

The amount of time required for remediation is also a challenge. If the problem is identified on the first call, it should be tagged and resolved within the tag. This is something we have been dealing with, as well as a problem that some of our clients have encountered.

The cost could be lower.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been working with Jamf Pro for five years. I received my Jamf certification in 2017 and have been using it ever since.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Jamf Pro has been stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Jamf Pro is a product that can be scaled. Scalability is something that must and should exist, and I always believe in possibilities.

At the moment, the way the product is designed for managing Apple devices meets my needs.

When I need to scale it in the future, I know it's a possibility.

How are customer service and support?

Support is something I believe could have been improved.

They offer one of the best cloud services available.

However, the response time and remediation could have been significantly improved.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Prior to Jamf Pro, I worked with three different products: SOTI, MaaS360, and VMware Workspace ONE.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is quite simple. It is not at all complicated.

It is extremely simple for any user from an endpoint and an administrator's perspective.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It would be beneficial if it could be reduced slightly.

The price for these products is designed in such a way that I believe it is a little on the high side.

What other advice do I have?

They are really evolving, and there have been a lot of improvements since 2017. I like the changes that have been made.

It is now designed in such a way that it can serve the needs of any organization. I have not encountered any issues where I felt it could have been significantly improved, and a specific feature could have greatly aided in addressing issues. So far, everything is running smoothly.

It is recommended for any of our organizations. Jamf Pro is superior to MDM on an Apple platform. If you put Jamf into context and you only want to manage Apple, I believe this is one of the best options.

It can be argued that the fact that it only supports Apple is either an advantage or a disadvantage.

Jamf is your go-to solution for managing your Apple Suite. You should investigate and deploy this product.

I would rate Jamf Pro a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer:
Flag as inappropriate
Get our free report covering Microsoft, VMware, JAMF, and other competitors of VMware Workspace ONE. Updated: January 2022.
563,148 professionals have used our research since 2012.