We performed a comparison between Red Hat Satellite and SaltStack based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Configuration Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I haven't used other mobile device management solutions, but compared to SCCM, we eliminate a lot of on-premises infrastructure and maintenance by using Intune."
"Conditional access helps me control uncontrolled access."
"Fortunately, now everything is streamlined into a single, unified platform."
"Remote Wipe and Autopilot is one of the best features."
"The ability to wipe data from and reset devices is one of the most important and valuable features. If a device is reported stolen, we can freeze it or wipe the data from it, preventing data leakage."
"I believe that the solution is actually in Gartner's top quadrant at the moment for mobile device management."
"Configuration profiles, remediation, scripts, and auto-pilot features are very good."
"The most valuable feature of Intune is the central dashboard for compliance and policy management."
"We've been getting reasonable support from Red Hat."
"It has been a stable solution...It is a totally scalable solution."
"The product is convenient to use."
"Fixing is the most valuable. When you deal with a lot of hardware and software and you have a lot of packages, fixing is a bit difficult. You need to track and pull up all such things, but Satellite makes this task easy. We have branches in other locations, and I can manage other branches by using Satellite Capsule, which is a great feature."
"Patch management is, for sure, most valuable. For license management and patch management, I would rate it a 10 out of 10."
"Technical support has been good."
"It cuts down significantly on the administrative time it takes to patch systems in a large environment."
"The product's most valuable feature is its ability to process patching and updates completely offline without an internet connection."
"The automation functionality has been most valuable. With a click of a button, we are able to automate provisioning, the build of new hardware and apply patches. These are all extremely important and differentiated tasks that can be automated in SaltStack."
"The product’s most valuable feature is its ability to provide environmental security."
"We monitor the configurations against CIS standards. We run CIS benchmarks and maintain configurations with higher CIS values for each server."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The ability to programmatically describe the desired state of a single, or an entire fleet of servers, on-premises, and in a cloud environment."
"I want to build automation that is intelligent, part of the fabric of our environment, and is somewhat self-sustaining. I think SaltStack can help me do this."
"SaltStack has given us the ability to deal with systems at scale and rectify issues at scale."
"Deploying an app can be a complex process due to dependencies."
"The solution could improve by having better integration with Apple."
"The installation could be improved to be simplified."
"They need to add more group policies. Intune currently does not have many group policies that you can deploy. Its reporting, which is very limited at the moment, also needs improvement. It will be great if they can add report customization. Its stability needs to be improved. Sometimes, when you register a device in Intune, it doesn't show up instantly on the engine portal on the admin side. They need to provide better support for complicated issues. They also have a long turnaround time."
"Microsoft Intune is not user-friendly to manage and has room for improvement."
"For an existing customer who has an SCCM, it would need to be upgraded to an MECM first before I can introduce Microsoft Intune."
"The policies we had in SCCM and AD offered features that are missing from Microsoft Intune."
"Due to the abundance of features, there's a lot to organize, which makes managing and setting up the solution challenging. The setup is immense, and it would be good to see improvement in this area."
"The documentation could be better."
"Red Hat Satellite has a short life cycle and we constantly need to update."
"The product could have more diversity in what it is able to deploy and might do better if it was not dedicated to Red Hat products only."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. The licensing is a bit expensive."
"I would like the direct integration with insights to be re-established."
"The product's automation capabilities need enhancement."
"It is difficult to update and maintain."
"There could be a feature to simplify the process without the requirement of any patch manager subscription."
"Its configuration process could be better."
"There is a little bit of pain when it comes to libraries and what is needed to run the product."
"A hardened set of tests would be much appreciated."
"SaltStack's features are minimal."
"This solution could be integrated with more hardware for an improved offering."
"Web UI."
"It is difficult to set up."
Red Hat Satellite is ranked 4th in Configuration Management with 22 reviews while SaltStack is ranked 14th in Configuration Management with 33 reviews. Red Hat Satellite is rated 8.2, while SaltStack is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Red Hat Satellite writes "A good product for managing patches and updates that could be more robust and up-to-date". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SaltStack writes "Orchestration tool that powers automation of processes with the click of a button". Red Hat Satellite is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, SUSE Manager, Microsoft Configuration Manager, AWS Systems Manager and vCenter Configuration Manager, whereas SaltStack is most compared with Microsoft Configuration Manager, VMware Aria Automation, HashiCorp Terraform, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and ServiceNow. See our Red Hat Satellite vs. SaltStack report.
See our list of best Configuration Management vendors.
We monitor all Configuration 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.