We performed a comparison between GFI LanGuard and Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager 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."I like that the solution can block users from unnecessarily putting devices on the network."
"The most useful features of GFI LanGuard are vulnerability assessment and patching solutions."
"The most valuable feature of GFI LanGuard is its email spam feature."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is that I am able to patch third-party solutions."
"It is helpful to patch and scan vulnerabilities."
"The initial setup was easy."
"Clear visibility regarding the status of the endpoint."
"It's been doing a lot for us, especially with third-party software patching and scheduling. We create multiple projects for monthly patch distribution and manage it all well."
"When it comes to Ivanti Patch for endpoints, I find peer-to-peer patching valuable. Having a peer-to-peer patching capability is highly beneficial for us."
"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."
"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."
"GFI LanGuard can improve by adding asset tracking."
"This solution is limited to the local area network only and cannot manage remote devices."
"GFI LanGuard has some technical limitations with machines."
"GFI LanGuard can improve by adding more modules, such as asset control or asset inventory."
"When you want to uninstall software from an endpoint, sometimes it becomes very problematic."
"If GFI LanGuard had a cloud version it would be better for people that are working from home."
"Inability to configure a rule-based management."
"It would be great to have an easier way to patch Linux machines within the product."
"The major challenges are macOS updates, patching, and backups. And for drawbacks, I wish Patch management was cloud-based instead of hosted on our own server."
More Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
GFI LanGuard is ranked 9th in Patch Management with 10 reviews while Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager is ranked 17th in Patch Management with 3 reviews. GFI LanGuard is rated 8.0, while Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of GFI LanGuard writes "A scalable, competitively priced solution with a good ROI and easy setup process ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager writes "Smoothly handles software patching and scheduling, enabling monthly patch distribution across multiple projects". GFI LanGuard is most compared with ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Microsoft Configuration Manager, BigFix and Kaseya VSA, whereas Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager is most compared with Ivanti Security Controls and Microsoft Configuration Manager. See our GFI LanGuard vs. Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager 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.
