We performed a comparison between BigFix and GFI LanGuard 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."One of the biggest benefits BigFix has had for our organization is the ease and efficiency to perform many different tasks, across pillars and platforms, all from one pane of glass."
"It has improved reliability upon delivery of software and has also helped reduce software expenses. The extensibility of BigFix helps to create custom solutions where we may have considered purchasing something instead."
"Patch management, because it very much improved the patch compliance and has the capability to manage Windows and non-Windows clients."
"It's easy to use, not complicated."
"What I like most is that it is a powerful solution."
"I like the inventory and life cycle management feature."
"It enables us to patch our systems quickly and within expectations and to increase our volume as needed. It has also helped us compress our patch sites. We used to do it monthly but now we do it weekly."
"BigFix can manage lost devices, so you can wipe them remotely to ensure the IP doesn't get out in public. Unified endpoint security is a new perspective. I know that HCL is also collaborating with IBM, but I'm not sure if there is any cooperation between them and MaaS360 or other endpoint components."
"This product is a great solution at a great price as long as it is only going to be used for a local area network."
"I like that the solution can block users from unnecessarily putting devices on the network."
"The most valuable feature of GFI LanGuard is its email spam feature."
"The most valuable features in GFI LanGuard are patch management and vulnerability assessment."
"The most valuable feature is that I am able to patch third-party solutions."
"The most useful features of GFI LanGuard are vulnerability assessment and patching solutions."
"The solution is easy to use and integrates well with other operating systems."
"The most valuable features of GFI LanGuard are the vulnerability assessment, it provides us with substantial insight into what applications are running on the endpoint systems and what vulnerabilities are there in the running applications. The second would be the assets tracking. I'm able to see in the network whether my endpoint server is operating and if all the other IT equipment is running in the environment. Additionally, GFI LanGuard is not heavy on system resources. It gives a competitive advantage over others."
"IBM has not focused on the Web Reports capabilities."
"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."
"I would like to see improvements in the Web UI program and also a BigFix console for Mac OS."
"I'd like to see better API integration with BigFix. We have some tremendous API capability inside of CyFIR and the ability to take textual search results, for example, and bring that back into the BigFix dashboard. This would be of extreme interest to us and our customers."
"The tool should be more friendly in terms of Web UI and should be having better vulnerability scanning mechanisms so a third-party application is not required to fulfill that aspect."
"The product lacks AI, ML, and IIT."
"They don't have a proper mobile device management capability. They're working on it, however, that's the one thing that needs improvement so that you can have full unified endpoint management."
"The stability is generally pretty good. The one thing that we came across is the battle between load on endpoints and load on our servers and relays versus how quickly, effectively and reliably actions can be taken. I'd like to not have to take an action on a system while I'm working with someone and then have to say whether something will happen between five seconds or thirty minutes from that point."
"GFI LanGuard has some technical limitations with machines."
"If GFI LanGuard had a cloud version it would be better for people that are working from home."
"GFI LanGuard can improve by adding asset tracking."
"GFI LanGuard could improve the rollback feature. If we have installed the wrong we have had some issues with the rollback function. Additionally, more input from GFI LanGuard for the custom software push install."
"The only drawback with GFI LanGuard is that you cannot directly integrate it from the Outlook email; instead, you have to first log in to the site to make changes."
"When you want to uninstall software from an endpoint, sometimes it becomes very problematic."
"This solution is limited to the local area network only and cannot manage remote devices."
"The version we are using only allows one person to use it at a time and does not allow multi-users."
BigFix is ranked 2nd in Patch Management with 91 reviews while GFI LanGuard is ranked 9th in Patch Management with 10 reviews. BigFix is rated 8.6, while GFI LanGuard 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 GFI LanGuard writes "A scalable, competitively priced solution with a good ROI and easy setup process ". BigFix is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Tanium, whereas GFI LanGuard is most compared with ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager and Kaseya VSA. See our BigFix vs. GFI LanGuard 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.
