We performed a comparison between Bigfix and Microsoft Windows Server Update Services based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: BigFix wins out in this comparison. The main difference between the two solutions is that Microsoft Windows Server Update Services users say deployment is complicated and that the product could benefit from better reporting.
"Between the user groups, the community, the AVP support, the direct access via technical route and the PMR support, half the time I don't even need to do a formal PMR because the solutions from the community resolve whatever issues we're having. It's the best community and support based system I've ever used."
"The architecture for patching and the 100% correct reporting makes BigFix stand apart from other solutions."
"Ability to run custom reports and custom relevance."
"Vulnerability scanning and patch automation."
"It's very straightforward."
"We found the implementation partner to be very supportive in terms of explaining and training the in-house resources and deploying the solution."
"It is pretty secure, and it gives extensive vulnerability features as compared to other applications. It supports multiple languages, and the security checks are pretty high as compared to other tools in the market."
"This has very much improved our organization by saving time to deploy thousands of endpoints to our customers."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is an easy-to-use and stable solution."
"The most valuable feature is Server Update's stability."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It's a scalable product."
"The solution gives authentic updates."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is highly stable. It is one of the most stable solutions from Microsoft."
"I like that we could evaluate every client and compare some weaknesses and vulnerability exploits in Microsoft Windows Server Update Services. This is a useful way to test applications against an attacker attempting to exploit the operating system."
"It provides central management interface for deployment."
"BigFix can improve the way machines report back to the console. In the external relay management environment, it has become more of a hybrid environment with most of the machines not being on-site. The need of having public-facing reporting items interconnected is becoming more and more crucial. In general, the reporting could use some enhancement."
"The reporting and dashboard parts have room for improvement."
"One aspect that could be improved is the speed of the console. Sometimes it can be slow, which is something that needs to be addressed."
"Needs to improve Network Access Protection (NAP) technologies to prevent computers with vulnerabilities from gaining access to networks."
"I would eventually like to see a SaaS offering, a cloud-hosted BigFix instance where we only have to put a relay in our environment."
"We would like to see a different license plan, e.g. to include features from lifecycle with Patch Management, as an example."
"I would like to see much better web reporting because as it is now, it's convoluted, basic, it's not modern, and there are limitations to it."
"The reporting structure could be a little more simplistic. Currently, it throws too many vulnerabilities. Some of them are not needed because they are only informational and limitations, and they are not of much help. It doesn't need to show us these things."
"Setup is complex."
"They should offer patch management across platforms."
"This solution's deployment could be improved. When I was the admin, there were some problems when deploying to clients. Sometimes the policy is not effective. I guess, more on the reliability side, more reliable means working more often with the clients. It could be easier to deploy."
"The ability to have more fine control within this solution is very important. It is not available for the solution in its current state."
"The platform’s dashboard and reporting features need enhancement."
"User interface is outdated and not user-friendly."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could improve the ease of use."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could improve by being less cumbersome to use. It's somewhat difficult to use, but we manage to get through it."
More Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Pricing and Cost Advice →
BigFix is ranked 2nd in Patch Management with 91 reviews while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is ranked 3rd in Patch Management with 38 reviews. BigFix is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of BigFix writes "Very stable and easy to deploy with excellent patch compliance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services writes "Lets us manage all our organization's updates from a single management console". BigFix is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Tanium and ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, whereas Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is most compared with ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Quest KACE Systems Management, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune and GFI LanGuard. See our BigFix vs. Microsoft Windows Server Update Services report.
See our list of best Patch Management vendors.
We monitor all Patch Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.