We performed a comparison between BigFix and ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus 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."Pre-packaged support for many third-party applications such as Adobe, Google, Mozilla, Sun (Java), WinZip, and others."
"The best feature of BigFix is its multi-platform support."
"It has plugins development options, which are great."
"The most valuable and essential features of BigFix are all of them, they are needed when serving the purpose of the desktop operation framework. We cannot run operations without patching or without having an appropriate mechanism for deploying software, et cetera. The features all serve their purpose for our use case."
"The most valuable point is when you deploy an application, you have to make sure that the application has been deployed to all computers and that is working perfectly. This solution works well at deployments."
"Being able to intelligently create reports, gather data, export CSVs and give that to the leadership of some of the client groups that my team supports has helped my organization."
"BigFix is easy to use."
"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."
"The initial setup was easy."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is centralized management."
"The solution's technical support is top-notch. Whenever I have a question, they get back to me immediately, which is probably one of the best features of the solution's technical support."
"You can create remote sessions for client systems."
"ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is lightweight and has a remote push feature that helps me manage several main sites and subsites."
"The most valuable features are patch management and mobile device management."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Maybe the online help could be improved. It'd be nice if you would have a lot more phrases and keywords that you could search for and find answers with the help."
"I would like to see for it to be a little easier for new users to be able to learn and create relevant statements. In my opinion, that's the hardest part for bringing on new people that haven't had BigFix experience. Being able to have easier ways to build relevance in ActionScript would be the biggest improvement I'd like to see."
"I would like to see different types of reporting and the ability to integrate closer with the cloud."
"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."
"It could use better integration with Hypervisor products like VMware."
"Around the scalability concern, I would like to see the ability to run teamed, clustered, or hierarchical root servers, in order to provide a more robust, high availability system. The single monolithic root server model does somewhat bother me."
"The only thing that I don't like about BigFix is that it does not support other devices such as printer firmware, router firmware, and things like that. I will be happy if I can control everything and get everything else in there, even if it is just a line item. They can do some enhancements to the Web UI. I am trying to get customers to be able to manage their environment by using Web UI, and it would be good if we can delete endpoints by using Web UI. We should also be able to generate Excel content or data tables from the Web UI without having to go to the console. It is small stuff, and it drives me crazy that I have to go to another console to do these things."
"ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus needs to improve speed."
"The solution should have a customer label where we can label those servers or include those servers for specific customers."
"I find the user interface a little bit intimidating and not very appealing."
"The agent can be a bit more intelligent."
"The tool's support needs improvement."
"The only area for improvement in ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, which I noticed, is the reporting."
"The user interface of ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus needs to be made more user-friendly, simplified, and less complicated."
"There are limitations to this solution when we are working with iOS, Apple laptops or desktops such as the Mac and iMac."
More ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus Pricing and Cost Advice →
BigFix is ranked 2nd in Patch Management with 91 reviews while ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is ranked 7th in Patch Management with 12 reviews. BigFix is rated 8.6, while ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of BigFix writes "Very stable and easy to deploy with excellent patch compliance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus writes "Good scalability and a responsive tech support team ". BigFix is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Red Hat Satellite, whereas ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is most compared with Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, Microsoft Configuration Manager, GFI LanGuard and N-able N-central. See our BigFix vs. ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus 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.