We performed a comparison between Forescout Platform and Quest KACE Systems Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Compliance solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The stability is amazing for the Forescout Platform. We have been using Forescout for four years, and no one complained about the stability."
"The scalability is good."
"Ease of deployment There's a great support team that becomes actively engaged whenever we encounter issues. Their technical support is amazing. Good documentation is available. The product is stable. The solution is highly scalable. I recommend using the solution because it gives verified control over the environment. It has a great visibility feature."
"I have noticed that in the last year the license model has changed from licensing the whole appliance to licensing the number of devices. It's more simple for a large installation, or a user to have CounterACT as their peripheral site in the company. It's a good choice to have changed the license policy."
"The 802.1X compliance authentication feature of this solution is very good."
"I can integrate Forescout with products from multiple vendors in my environment, and also, the integration is searchable. It can be used with 802.1X and non-802.1X to integrate with my existing network. I don't need to upgrade any existing networks in my system, and I don't need to replace existing devices to integrate with Forescout. I find value in not having to spend money upgrading existing devices and networks."
"Being able to actively identify the client without a certificate allows you to control every device on your network regardless of the make, model, and software running. This allows for end-to-end security."
"The standout strength of this solution lies in its unique capability to effectively manage unmanaged switches."
"KACE automatically tracks this information and saves it for me, allowing me to call it up on the dashboard. For example, if I need to find Juliano's computer in the system, I don't need to search through endless spreadsheets. I just search for "Juliano" in KACE. KACE also lists other details like the last login user."
"The solution provides us a single pane of glass with everything that we need for endpoint management of all devices. It definitely has made our endpoint management process much easier."
"I am impressed by the service desk ticketing and asset management."
"The Systems Deployment Appliance is magical when it comes to automating deployment... Not only can we have multiple images, specific to end-users' uses, but we have a plethora of post-installation tasks to install or configure the system, tasks that can be re-used for each system. You just have one basic base image, and then you use the post-install tasks to customize everything else. It is amazing."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of KACE is the mass package deployment. There are a lot of endpoint management solutions in the market. The way KACE responds is with the installation management feature, which is done in a very intelligent way, as well as scripting. It's wow. It's really wow. On top of that, there is a mass undeployment feature as well."
"We're able to deploy software and push out fixes to endpoints faster than ever."
"We use the Systems Deployment appliance. It's our bread and butter. It is every machine that gets imaged here in this building and out through the whole state goes through the SDA. We rely on it completely. There is no manual process of getting a laptop out of a box, plugging it up, turning it on, and waiting for Windows to start. If you were to go to Best Buy and buy a brand new laptop, you spend the next two to three hours just setting it up. We don't do that. We get a laptop, plug it into the network, connect it to the SDA, and within about three clicks, we're done."
"The product needs to improve its support. I know a case that dragged on for about one and a half years. They eventually suggested professional services and closed the ticket. We followed their advice, engaging the account manager and professional service team, only to discover that the issue was a bug. After reopening the case, it's been about six months, and the problem still hasn't been resolved."
"Forescout Platform could improve the vulnerability management as well as the control on the endpoint, which needs to be connected to my network."
"Can be expensive if it's only being used for one feature."
"The solution could always improve by adding more features to make it more robust."
"Forescout Platform could improve the integration or compatibility with other solutions, such as Chinese-made solutions. They do not have any integration with S33 which is a switch. They do not have good integration with new solutions in the market. They do integrate well with Rocket, Cisco, Juniper, and quite a few more but they could expand the integration."
"Forescout needs to upgrade its development in the future."
"I believe that the overall user experience has not always been preferable."
"They should improve features related to IT security. ForeScout should analyze behavior to see if the behavior is malicious behavior and block this device. They should develop the ability to analyze the behavior of the device in my environment."
"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."
"It could be designed a little bit more intuitively in terms of administration."
"The initial setup was complex. It is a Linux-based virtual server, where the customer cannot get into the back-end, so you can only follow their prompts. Then, there are specific things that have to be done in their implementation and upgrade phases that have to be done in a certain order or steps. If you don't get those steps right, the system doesn't work. I think that either simplifying that process or providing really good step-by-step documentation would be helpful."
"The software asset management functionality is an area that needs to be improved. It could be more automated because when connections need to be made, such as when I connected Adobe and my malware removed, the process was pretty much manual."
"There isn't a lot they need to improve with the solution itself at this point. It is pretty close to providing a single pane of glass for everything that we need for endpoint management specifically on all devices. There is very little that it doesn't provide for us, and for those, we have to go to other methods. There are some of the patching solutions that it doesn't take care of for us. So, we have to do those manually on the devices, and that's really the biggest thing. It doesn't do patching really well for non-Microsoft applications. The major application updates, particularly Windows updates, don't function nearly as well, but, for the vast majority of things, it does just fine. If they could improve in this aspect, that'd be great, but I don't know if they're going to be able to do that."
"We had issues with the tool's support. We are a Dutch firm and everything has to be in Dutch. We were not able to do the alerts. You were required to tweak them a lot to get them in the language that you preferred. The solution's support depended on the person that you got online. Sometimes, the response was fast and other times you needed to wait a long time. The support also depended on the levels of support that you had requested."
"It is a little bit difficult to use the license compliances because you need to decide when you are using the software catalog if you are using it with their license compliance or the normal software part. Under the inventory, you can use software as a menu link or software catalog. Most of my specialist software is not in the software catalog. When I try to import them, in my license compliances overview, there are cryptic names for this software that I have to import. That is not very good for the reports that I use. When I take them to my bosses, they see cryptic names of software that they don't understand. It would be much better for me if I could use software and the software catalog as well for the license compliances."
"The only hiccups we had were some power issues, where the box was a little under-powered early on."
More Quest KACE Systems Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Forescout Platform is ranked 4th in Endpoint Compliance with 69 reviews while Quest KACE Systems Management is ranked 5th in Endpoint Compliance with 38 reviews. Forescout Platform is rated 8.4, while Quest KACE Systems Management is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Forescout Platform writes "We can go granular on each endpoint, quarantine non-compliant machines, and target vulnerabilities through scripting". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest KACE Systems Management writes "Easy to use, saves us time, and increases IT productivity". Forescout Platform is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Nozomi Networks and Armis, whereas Quest KACE Systems Management is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, BigFix and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform. See our Forescout Platform vs. Quest KACE Systems Management report.
See our list of best Endpoint Compliance vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Compliance 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.