We performed a comparison between Microsoft Configuration Manager and Pandora FMS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Offers good patching."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability."
"It is a very good solution. It has a good interface and is easy to use. On top of that, it is very reliable in terms of distribution as well as getting the report."
"This solution has made life easy with respect to patching, compliance, and OSD."
"The technical support is good."
"This has made the management of our environment easier."
"This solution captures all the devices in our infrastructure."
"Patching is very effective and reporting is very good."
"I like this solution a lot because it has a very large Hispanic community and the platform looks very friendly."
"It provides us with proactive monitoring and is very easy to configure and maintain."
"The administration of the console is very easy. I like that Pandora FMS is interactive and easy to manage."
"The solution is so lightweight that with only 4GB of ram, it allows keeping track of up to two hundred agents from a single console."
"This solution has screens that are easy to understand and provide a wealth of information."
"Pandora's architecture is interesting. It's open so you can easily extend and enhance it. It's simpler to customize Pandora compared to other solutions. It's also scalable enough to support large environments."
"Thanks to this software and to the work of the support team, we have everything under control."
"What I value most about Pandora FMS is the simplicity of working with it."
"In terms of the monitoring, the timeframe it takes to actually report back on the compliance of a device after it has been patched is a bit too long."
"The App to upgrades to the server needs to be improved."
"The solution is a bit heavy on the sources such as RAM or CPU and the software needs to be a bit lighter."
"Could do with some cosmetic improvements on the user interface."
"There is a reboot issue with the patching. Sometimes, if patching runs into any issue whatsoever, it doesn't reboot but it doesn't tell you it errored out. It just sits there and we don't find out until the next day whether it patched or not. That was a big issue for us. We're working through that. They added some stuff in there now where you can actually tell reboot is pending. But we still need some kind of notification that if something fails or is pending, we know. We shouldn't have to go in and look. They don't have anything for that right now."
"The solution can be improved with the addition of a mobile device manager."
"The main thing is that SCCM has to become an appliance instead of a server. When I say appliance, it has to come preconfigured so that it is drop-shipped into the enterprise and then you activate the feature sets that you want. It should pull down all the latest binaries. Once that is all there, it should have a discovery tool which goes out and discovers the assets within an enterprise. If the server, workstation, and applications are all coming from the same vendor, why not have the vendor do this work for us and automate it as much as it possibly can?"
"Devices like smartphones and tablets are managed very well on VMware, however, they are absent in SCCM. I could configure iPad from the VMware site and it was done very easily. It should be just as possible on SCCM."
"When it comes to the definition of local Software Agents for the first time in the open-source version, it can become very tedious."
"In the future, we may have double the number of devices, and we do not want to have any issues with performance in the data display."
"We would like the real-time monitoring of an interface to be improved within this solution."
"The price for Pandora FMS is expensive."
"A nice feature in the next release would be an automation module to run workflow actions."
"I would like to have a dashboard with all assets displayed, with a quick hover-over status."
"It would be useful if Pandora FMS included an ISO image (or «software appliance») for each big company that leases virtual private machines (VPS), just like in AWS."
"Improvements are needed for server and network discovery, including service-based discovery."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 2nd in Server Monitoring with 78 reviews while Pandora FMS is ranked 12th in Server Monitoring with 22 reviews. Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2, while Pandora FMS is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Affordable, easy to use, and easy to understand". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pandora FMS writes "The open architecture is easy to extend and enhance". Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, BigFix, Tanium and Microsoft Intune, whereas Pandora FMS is most compared with Zabbix, Wazuh, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios XI and Centreon. See our Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Pandora FMS report.
See our list of best Server Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Server Monitoring 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.
