We performed a comparison between GFI LanGuard 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 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."
"I like that the solution can block users from unnecessarily putting devices on the network."
"It is helpful to patch and scan vulnerabilities."
"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 initial setup was easy."
"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 feature of GFI LanGuard is its email spam feature."
"The big pros of Quest KACE Systems Management are its simple interface, and simple, direct management. It's very easy to maintain and manage the device, and it's easy to get it up and running. You can have it up and running in an hour..."
"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 solution provides us a single pane of glass with everything that we need for endpoint management of all devices. It definitely has made our endpoint management process much easier."
"The most valuable feature is the imaging of computers through the SDA... Being able to do that so quickly with the SDA, and to then use the SMA for reinstalling software, has been huge for our productivity."
"The information available via KACE is up to date, critical to our normal operations, and has become the go-to tool of our IT teams for extended support."
"The software asset management has been a big help, even when it comes to license true-ups. I can use it to find out how many Tivoli we have, and boom, there's the number... And you can actually click on the information about the software and it shows, for example, that these five servers are where it's being reported. If you really want, you can log in to them and validate."
"It also does patch management. At the moment, I'm rolling out a new feature update, 20.8.2, and it's a great challenge because we have to deploy it to 1,200 computers in the home office. We want to do it without interrupting production, but KACE is reliable and it's easy to adapt it to my needs for how and when to deploy the feature update."
"We can get the majority of what we need with this product and do not have to spend money on something else."
"The documentation on how to use this solution in a Linux environment is not clear, which is something that should be improved because it is complicated."
"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."
"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 asset tracking."
"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."
"GFI LanGuard can improve by adding more modules, such as asset control or asset inventory."
"The solution needs to have the ability to push out managed feature updates from Microsoft in a more seamless way."
"The only pain point I have is with their salespeople. They call too often. They're too aggressive in trying to upsell. We know what we need, and we know if we want to expand. I don't mind quarterly calls from them, but sometimes, it is weekly. They need to get their sales team under control. The main goal of their support people and professional services is to make sure they deliver the service, and they deliver it well, whereas their salespeople are so interested in making a sale that they're wasting my time."
"Easier integration would be beneficial."
"We had issues with the tool's support. We are a Dutch firm and everything has to be in Dutch. We were not able to do the alerts. You were required to tweak them a lot to get them in the language that you preferred. The solution's support depended on the person that you got online. Sometimes, the response was fast and other times you needed to wait a long time. The support also depended on the levels of support that you had requested."
"I've had some issues with patch catalogue."
"The GUI needs some work. I love all that it can do, however, it can be just be so cluttered at times."
"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."
"When we have to do a rebuild on these machines, although it is rare, I would like to be able to do more than 10 at a time. With the current limit, it slows me down because I have to set up 10, then the next 10, and so forth."
More Quest KACE Systems Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
GFI LanGuard is ranked 9th in Patch Management with 10 reviews while Quest KACE Systems Management is ranked 6th in Patch Management with 38 reviews. GFI LanGuard is rated 8.0, while Quest KACE Systems Management is rated 8.8. 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 Quest KACE Systems Management writes "Easy to use, saves us time, and increases IT productivity". GFI LanGuard is most compared with ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager and BigFix, 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 GFI LanGuard 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.
