We performed a comparison between GFI LanGuard and Microsoft Configuration 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 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 of GFI LanGuard is its email spam feature."
"The most valuable feature is that I am able to patch third-party solutions."
"It is helpful to patch and scan vulnerabilities."
"The solution is easy to use and integrates well with other operating systems."
"The most valuable features in GFI LanGuard are patch management and vulnerability assessment."
"This solution has made life easy with respect to patching, compliance, and OSD."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to deploy patches to nearly all applications."
"It's helped us solve problems surrounding patching, installing, and reporting different patches, etc., on the virtual machines."
"Microsoft Configuration Manager is integrated with other Microsoft products."
"The most valuable feature is the graphical-based reports of software updates that have been successful, the ones that have failed, and a summary of where the failures are what security breaches may occur."
"It is a very well-rounded product. It is a complete package with all the features using which we are able to manage our PCs very efficiently."
"Automation of operating system, application, and update deployments massively reduces IT operations effort."
"Provides great insight into the functionalities of the data scope."
"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."
"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."
"GFI LanGuard can improve by adding more modules, such as asset control or asset inventory."
"If GFI LanGuard had a cloud version it would be better for people that are working from home."
"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."
"GFI LanGuard can improve by adding asset tracking."
"The version we are using only allows one person to use it at a time and does not allow multi-users."
"The main thing is that SCCM has to become an appliance instead of a server. When I say appliance, it has to come preconfigured so that it is drop-shipped into the enterprise and then you activate the feature sets that you want. It should pull down all the latest binaries. Once that is all there, it should have a discovery tool which goes out and discovers the assets within an enterprise. If the server, workstation, and applications are all coming from the same vendor, why not have the vendor do this work for us and automate it as much as it possibly can?"
"Microsoft should extend support for additional platforms."
"The solution is on-premises. The cloud version of the product, if a person needs to be on the cloud, would be InTune, which already exists as an option. SCCM doesn't need to offer cloud features for this reason."
"With Microsoft Premier Support, you get what you pay for. There's Third Tier Support that you pay for. If you pay for that, you get excellent support, and if you don't pay for that, then you get the less experienced staff."
"There should probably be better remote support. They should also continue to improve on patch management, patching, and creating or turning products in software into deployable apps."
"The solution can be improved with the addition of a mobile device manager."
"The database should be made to be more stable and robust, but not so much the configuration."
"As far as load balancing across, they don't have that support yet, so that you can actually build multiple primaries and have it load balance across. They don't have any of that functionality yet. That would be a nice feature, to scale that way."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
GFI LanGuard is ranked 9th in Patch Management with 10 reviews while Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 1st in Patch Management with 78 reviews. GFI LanGuard is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2. 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 Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Seamless system updates, useful integration, and reliable". GFI LanGuard is most compared with ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager, BigFix and Kaseya VSA, whereas Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, BigFix, Microsoft Intune and Tanium. See our GFI LanGuard vs. Microsoft Configuration 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.