We performed a comparison between Microsoft Configuration Manager and Microsoft Windows Server Update Services based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Patch Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It does the job and meets our needs. With everybody working remotely these days, we are using this solution to deploy everything. The deployment of PCs is easy."
"I manage software updates and operating systems for devices, and within seconds, we can remotely deploy a system for, say, 2,000 devices. Not only that, but we can also deploy scripts and create comprehensive compliance rules."
"It saves a lot of money when you can install things automatically and they are installed the exact same way on every computer."
"There have to be made some improvement in WSUS and control in other non-Microsoft products updates."
"It is a very well-rounded product. It is a complete package with all the features using which we are able to manage our PCs very efficiently."
"Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is valuable in keeping our systems updated. We are able to send updates to all the systems. Additionally, the Intune integration is helpful."
"It is easy to install, and quick to deploy."
"I like the data collection."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to identify which updates are needed on a particular machine."
"The noteworthy aspect is the system's capability to handle an extensive range of services and workloads, with the potential for almost unlimited scalability."
"A valuable feature about this solution is that it enforces an updating and patching process for my applications."
"The most important aspect is that we can centrally deploy the updates that are necessary for the organization. It's important."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is an easy-to-use and stable solution."
"I am absolutely happy with its stability and performance. It is a stable product."
"Instead of leaving each server to download their own updates, with WSUS you have a centralized management tool for all the updates alongside a log for all the servers. By creating and deploying a WSUS server that will download the updates from the internet and dispatch them to the other servers, you can have control over the entire deployment process."
"We can easily download particular patches, and we can apply them on a group basis and policy basis."
"Regarding this, I'd like to mention the agent situation. When the agent on an end-user device is not functioning correctly, it can be quite problematic. It would be highly beneficial if there were a self-healing mechanism in place. Essentially, if the agent becomes corrupted or encounters issues, it should be able to rectify itself autonomously. This is particularly critical because, in order to utilize a tool like MECM (assuming you're referring to Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager), we need to deploy agents, known as AsMs, on all the devices we use, such as Windows 10 or Windows Server. Sometimes, when we deploy configurations or updates, they don't apply properly due to agent issues. This issue has been present since we began using MECM around 23 years ago. Unfortunately, there is currently no built-in mechanism for the agent to detect its own problems and initiate self-repair. Microsoft doesn’t have any feature to scan vulnerabilities and hence, they could include those."
"SCCM should strive to enhance the accuracy of its reporting functions in order to avoid any issues with incorrect or inaccurate data."
"I want the system to provide some dependency relations. I would also like to see the relationship between different machines."
"We'd like the solution to make it easier to manage remote users."
"Troubleshooting in general needs improvement. There's just a ton of logs to go through, and so finding the error log that corresponds with that you're doing can sometimes be difficult."
"The solution is a bit heavy on the sources such as RAM or CPU and the software needs to be a bit lighter."
"Management of Linux devices could be improved."
"Based on my experience with SCCM 2016, the main, big issue is not having a good user-friendly environment. It needs much better GUI."
"The database could be improved. In large environments, for example, we often get problems with reporting."
"A few bugs need to be figured out for the security side."
"More integration with different platforms would be an improvement."
"They should offer patch management across platforms."
"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."
"The only complex part was the solution’s tricky setup phase."
"The product must improve its support."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 1st in Patch Management with 78 reviews while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is ranked 3rd in Patch Management with 38 reviews. Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Seamless system updates, useful integration, and reliable". 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". Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, BigFix, Microsoft Intune and Tanium, whereas Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is most compared with BigFix, ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Quest KACE Systems Management, Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune and GFI LanGuard. See our Microsoft Configuration Manager 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.