We performed a comparison between Ivanti Patch for Linux, UNIX, Mac and Quest KACE Systems Management 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."The website development section is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"The tool is a stable product."
"Ivanti Patch for Linux, UNIX, and Mac helps to ensure that everything is up to date."
"The solution is easy to implement."
"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."
"We're able to deploy software and push out fixes to endpoints faster than ever."
"There is ease of use, and its pricing was a driving factor."
"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."
"KACE has made our life much easier since we got off the Microsoft solution. The Microsoft solution was a lot harder to image over different ports and stuff. They would only have this one place where we could do all the imaging. Now, we have a whole building where we can image from. This means that we can image from our storage area, where we have a place to do our imaging. We can also image right at our desks, which is a lot easier."
"I can reach people now that I couldn't have reached previously. We are saving about 25 percent in time."
"Patching is definitely the most valuable feature. It gives us good, centralized software, which comes in very handy since we are doing 400 servers at a time. It enables us to manage all the servers, and to deal with the application team regarding reboots and scheduling."
"The ability to build scripts right on the deployment center itself, as well as building groups that take those scripts/task chains has been absolutely invaluable and one of the most important parts of my whole environment."
"The solution can be quite expensive, compared to other options on the market."
"The better way to improve the solution is by working on an area where it lacks, which includes the migration part."
"The tool needs to improve its visual system."
"We'd love to see support for larger dependencies in the scripting feature."
"One of the complications is that they don't have 24/7 support, and they're also not in our time zone... Sometimes, no matter how critical my application is, if my production server is down I won't be able to connect with anybody till 11:00 AM Eastern Standard Time."
"KACE implemented the possibility of reducing the network speed of the KACE agent. You can set it so that it takes whatever network speed you want or you can set it to 5 Mb, to save network speed. You set it for all the computers, but it would be preferable to separate between VPN connections in our home office and the local area. It would be great to be able to set separate speeds for different VLANs."
"The problem is that it's harder to directly emulate a lot of the stuff that the group policies do, using the KACE solution. With regular group policies, you just specify the various settings you want to change on the workstations, and then you specify the workstations and—while it's kind of an ugly mess—it does it. Whereas on KACE, you really have to know what you're doing with scripting to effectively script those exact same changes."
"Imaging becomes a problem when you start to try to go beyond doing more than thirty or forty machines at a time. We initially tried to do that virtually and it just, it wouldn't work."
"The K1000 doesn't communicate well with some clients without SMB. There are some issues with getting things to image correctly because they rely on SMB, and SMB is a protocol that is being removed due to security reasons. Organizations are trying to rely less and less on SMB. I know Quest is aware of it. They've talked about having a new version that wouldn't rely on SMB for connection to the clients, but they haven't gotten there yet."
"It could be designed a little bit more intuitively in terms of administration."
"Its dashboard needs improvement. Currently, there is no way to modify the dashboard. There should be more flexibility so that we can create views according to our use case."
More Ivanti Patch for Linux, UNIX, Mac Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Quest KACE Systems Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Ivanti Patch for Linux, UNIX, Mac is ranked 15th in Patch Management with 4 reviews while Quest KACE Systems Management is ranked 6th in Patch Management with 38 reviews. Ivanti Patch for Linux, UNIX, Mac is rated 9.0, while Quest KACE Systems Management is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Ivanti Patch for Linux, UNIX, Mac writes "With good website development capabilities, the solution also provides exceptional stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest KACE Systems Management writes "Easy to use, saves us time, and increases IT productivity". Ivanti Patch for Linux, UNIX, Mac is most compared with Ivanti Security Controls, 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 Ivanti Patch for Linux, UNIX, Mac vs. Quest KACE Systems Management 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.