We performed a comparison between Red Hat Satellite and vCenter Configuration Manager 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."Mobile device management is most valuable."
"The stability of Microsoft Intune is good."
"It's really easy to access."
"Being able to manage the devices remotely is most valuable. We can push security requirements through Microsoft Intune."
"This product offers an alternative solution to other UEM (Unified Endpoint Management) solutions."
"The main advantage is that Intune performs its intended functions effectively."
"The conditional access policies that we set up are very useful."
"The standout features of Intune are its excellent mobile device management and highly effective application management capabilities."
"It plays a significant role in managing the lifecycle of our systems and ensures that we can effectively control and update the software versions to align with our organization's needs."
"The most valuable feature is the fact that you don't have to expose your mission-critical environment to the Internet. With the Satellite system in place, it acts as a barrier between your Red Hat infrastructure and the public Internet."
"The product helps me to manage a large number of servers from one console."
"It has been a stable solution...It is a totally scalable solution."
"Technical support has been good."
"You don't need to depend on any third party. It's a complete solution for patch and configuration management when integrated with the existing system."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is vulnerability management."
"Previously, we were using one server to update from a different repository over the HTTP. We had to manually manage the updates on the repository server. Satellite made the process easier."
"Beneficial patch management and template features."
"My experience managing virtual environments using vCenter Configuration Manager has been quite smooth. Over time, I've observed that there's been a significant local competency built around the product, especially in India, where ESXi and VMware dominate the market. It's evident that vCenter Configuration Center is the preferred management tool in this context, and it's relatively easy to find expertise in the market."
"The management of vCenter Configuration Manager can support the UI interface. It helps in monitoring, logging alert and performance, forecasting the system to provide services in the environment."
"The most valuable feature of vCenter Configuration Manager is the automated processes."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is the virtual machine management across different hosts, located in different areas."
"vCenter is very easy to use if you have good skills. It takes a little time to configure everything. It is template-based, so you click, click, and then reboot. It takes 15 minutes."
"The most valuable features of vCenter Configuration Manager are highly mature technology."
"The tool's scalability is good and easy, especially when compared to Microsoft Hyper-V."
"The pricing can be expensive if you are not combining it with other products."
"The solution could be improved by the opportunity to connect third-party application databases, such as Chocolatey or another setup store, to Intune."
"There can be some added features, such as an improved dashboard. Any new feature that could be a benefit to our customers would be good."
"The technical support could be improved."
"The security features should be improved."
"The main disadvantage seen today is regarding Linux clients. We have a lot of development resources that have Linux on their clients, and we can't manage them on the same platform, as we do with other clients such as macOS and Windows. So, it should have support for Linux clients. It should also have better support for macOS."
"I would like the ability to install the agent on devices from suppliers, which would enable us to implement a zero-trust strategy for guest devices."
"From a new user's perspective, it may be a little overwhelming because there are quite a few things to look at in the console, however, once you are sort of acclimated and are familiar with your core functions, it's fairly simple and straightforward."
"There needs to be some margin for improvement in terms of the way Satellite manages subscriptions. It is still very confusing when we have different contracts or different bundles of subscriptions, and we need to manage those within Satellite in a way that's very user-friendly."
"They could make it more easy to use and improve the GUI so that it's more intuitive."
"It should basically include a complete slew of system management and monitoring tools such as Nagios. It should be a single pane of glass that gives us a complete solution. It is a good solution, but it is missing a few important things. We're using Capsule for DMVs on other secured zones. Capsule is a part of Satellite to be a proxy of sorts."
"It has not been significantly updated in a while."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. The licensing is a bit expensive."
"It wasn't easy in the beginning, and some effort was required to work it out. I already had the product documentation, but it was not well organized. It wasn't easy to follow. There were a lot of documents here and there."
"The solution's initial setup is a little bit tricky."
"Red Hat Satellite's pricing needs improvement."
"The product's high price is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"The functions are not running in HTML5."
"It should be easier to use alternate storage."
"The cost of this solution should be improved."
"It can take a long time for the first information to become available. On the other hand, that's normal. It has to collect a lot of information before it can predict future needs. But it would be nice if there was some kind of base level to get started."
"Some of the migrations are difficult to manage since the solution is not compatible with a few of the operating systems, which poses a challenge during the physical to virtual migration process."
"There are a lot of steps to do the configuration. We have to do it step by step and it is time-consuming. If it was easier it could be done quicker. There should be a preloaded configuration."
"There could be an option for clients to manage the tool as well."
More vCenter Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Satellite is ranked 4th in Configuration Management with 22 reviews while vCenter Configuration Manager is ranked 11th in Configuration Management with 50 reviews. Red Hat Satellite is rated 8.2, while vCenter Configuration Manager is rated 8.6. 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 vCenter Configuration Manager writes "A solution with a range of functionalities and several pricing plans that suit your needs". Red Hat Satellite is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, SUSE Manager, Microsoft Configuration Manager, AWS Systems Manager and Chef, whereas vCenter Configuration Manager is most compared with Microsoft Configuration Manager and BigFix. See our Red Hat Satellite vs. vCenter Configuration Manager 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.