We performed a comparison between Citrix Endpoint Management and ManageEngine Endpoint Central based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It has a useful device management feature."
"We already use a lot of Microsoft products in our company, and therefore, it made sense to also use this product."
"The features I found most valuable in Intune are its user visibility and troubleshooting options."
"We have found the solution is capable of scaling."
"The security-related tools are excellent; these features allow us to secure devices, lock them down, and ensure compliance."
"Based on my experience, I find Intune very flexible for managing Windows devices. We can use scripting, and we can make use of the self-service portal or the company portal to publish some of the applications for Windows."
"It is quite policy-enabled, so you can build pretty much any policy to manage remote endpoints."
"We can manage and standardize security across your environment, identify problems, receive alerts, and so on. That's its purpose, and that's also why it's so good."
"ShareFile, in particular, is valuable with its ease of sharing, and the best category security that is in the hands of users."
"One key feature is secure application delivery, which enables the secure delivery of mobile and web applications to end-user devices. This ensures data protection and compliance with corporate policies."
"The product is capable of acting in many different ways to help secure architecture."
"A valuable feature of Citrix Endpoint Management is that it's stable. The stability is not a challenge among the move to the cloud."
"We have seen improvements in compliance management on the devices."
"The MAM applications of the product are great."
"The most important feature we found to be useful in the COVID situation is the secure connection, which gives the IT support staff the ability to seamlessly connect with the users remotely and in a secure way."
"The solution is time-saving and resource-saving."
"We use the product to know about our assets and manage remote support."
"The dashboard has been very useful."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"Has good functionality and is user-friendly."
"The ability to run event viewer, task manager, services, command, file browser, certificate all remotely without interrupting users is the most valuable aspect. Software deployment and prohibiting, allowing us to standardize on the software that has been deployed through the environment and then prohibiting illegal software such as torrent applications has been valuable."
"In terms of technical capability, it is doing very well. It is doing better than other industry products. It is at a place where we can compare it with Microsoft products. Its scalability is also good."
"Microsoft Intune has a latency response time issue. The latency has room for improvement."
"The reporting and cost have room for improvement."
"The reporting could be improved, as it's pretty poor compared to other products of this type."
"It should be easier to define policies and comply with those policies."
"Intune could add more Linux security features and more integration with on-prem devices. The application deployments can also be improved."
"The reports that are generated aren't so great. They don't give a lot of meaning so far, but that could be down to user knowledge than the actual reporting side of things. I'm not a big user of it, but I was a bigger user of MaaS360, and we used to be able to run weekly and monthly reports. In the case of any deviations. we'd get a warning immediately. That's not so easy to do or to get in place for Intune. This could be just a user issue, but when I compare both, that's the only thing that's lacking for me."
"In future releases, I would like to see better integration with Apple products."
"There needs to be more support for Mac operating systems."
"Support for inventory management of Apple devices should be added."
"Requires integrating with ABM before enabling some of the features."
"The tool’s battery usage was high."
"Citrix needs to improve the architecture. They also need to strengthen the application integration. They keep referring to some things to be required as security, and they keep selling the next level and on-premise separately. They should give the customer the opportunity to decide whether they want to use the next level on-premise or on-cloud, but they should not charge additional fees if the customer wants to deploy the next level on-premise because the customer is already being charged as the end user. They should allow next level on-premise optimization without any additional charges."
"Citrix often depends on other services like backend data centers, network security, and application firewalls. Issues in these areas can be misinterpreted as Citrix issues by users."
"The team I've currently got is not using it particularly well, due to the fact that they don't know how to use it particularly well. They've not done any training and so on."
"ManageEngine Desktop Central is very limited. When you scan your system, it will only recognize Microsoft Windows Defender and BitLocker."
"I really feel like asset explorer should be a component of desktop central. That would make it the ultimate desktop management tool. This would also simplify the asset management role since an agent is already being deployed and assets could be added at the same time."
"Its licensing should be improved."
"We would like to see options for deploying Microsoft 365 accounts into Outlook. For now we only can use it to deploy exchange accounts. Also we would like to see an option do decline Windows 7 ESU patches in a bulk."
"Compared to the solution we use to manage our Mac products, this solution lacks the ability to create dynamic groups. We would like the ability, for example, for machines which have been upgraded to form part of a grouping based on this upgrade."
"Improvement should be done as per customer requirements."
"The reports provided by the product are an area of concern where improvements are required. The visibility provided by the reports is not very attractive."
More ManageEngine Endpoint Central Pricing and Cost Advice →
Citrix Endpoint Management is ranked 8th in Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) with 10 reviews while ManageEngine Endpoint Central is ranked 3rd in Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) with 60 reviews. Citrix Endpoint Management is rated 8.2, while ManageEngine Endpoint Central is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Citrix Endpoint Management writes "Offers flexible application management that allows secure delivery of applications to endpoints, enabling users to operate applications on the go". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ManageEngine Endpoint Central writes "An in-depth and intuitive product with good cross-platform capabilities, but they should have a more global support channel". Citrix Endpoint Management is most compared with VMware Workspace ONE, MOBI and Ivanti Endpoint Manager, whereas ManageEngine Endpoint Central is most compared with Microsoft Configuration Manager, VMware Workspace ONE, Jamf Pro, ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus and SOTI MobiControl. See our Citrix Endpoint Management vs. ManageEngine Endpoint Central report.
See our list of best Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) vendors.
We monitor all Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) 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.
