We performed a comparison between AWS Systems Manager and Red Hat Satellite 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."Autopilot is the most valuable feature of Microsoft Intune."
"It allows our clients to have the confidence to centrally manage policies for security. It helps them in securing the organization from a technology aspect."
"The features I found most valuable in Intune are its user visibility and troubleshooting options."
"The mobile application management, MAM, is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"Autopilot is the most valuable feature."
"For our office workers who are not based in Norway, when we order the PC, we can do some of the settings for them. These are standardized settings. We can set them up exactly as they are in Norway so that they're the same."
"One of the most valuable aspects of Microsoft Intune is its seamless integration with Azure Active Directory, offering capabilities akin to Group Policy Objects."
"It's normally able to meet 100% expectations of our customers."
"Has a variety of automation options."
"When we do the automation in the cloud, we use the SSM agent. This helps us to test our automation and documents, and monitor the cloud."
"With AWS Systems Manager, our company can patch our systems directly from it, so we don't need to patch our systems manually."
"Systems Manager has a feature where it analyzes the logs and gives us a performance overview in the form of a graph. We know when it's taking up more resources and when there are spikes, so we can predict the usability."
"AWS provides Auto Scaling groups."
"The solution is user-friendly"
"The solution's ability to scale is good."
"The most valuable features of Red Hat Satellite are its support, simplicity, and patch management."
"We've been getting reasonable support from Red Hat."
"The product is convenient to use."
"Patch management is, for sure, most valuable. For license management and patch management, I would rate it a 10 out of 10."
"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."
"The product's most valuable feature is its ability to process patching and updates completely offline without an internet connection."
"The compliance auditing helped me a lot."
"It has been a stable solution...It is a totally scalable solution."
"The reporting is subpar. That's the only issue we have with Intune. We use another solution for that purpose."
"I know that their AI pieces are at the infancy stage, but allowing users to do more tagging for information would be an interesting thing because Intune also directly integrates with Azure. Because a lot of the devices are hosted with that, you also get a lot of tagging of user data and other things like that."
"The product needs to upgrade itself when the server is overloaded."
"The synchronization could be improved."
"Reporting could be improved. It needs to be more expensive and robust."
"There can be delays in the deployment of new policies."
"Microsoft Intune could enhance its patch management for various devices, ensuring regular updates and tracking of device privileges."
"It's only good for a Microsoft environment."
"Lacks sufficient integrations."
"Additional features can be added as per customer requirements."
"The current challenge is that we can't pull any incidents from other accounts."
"The fact that AWS Systems Manager takes time to complete the patching process, makes it an area where improvements are required."
"We formerly used third-party products to analyze the log, give us information, and find bottlenecks. Systems Manager could provide more tools that conduct this analysis, so we don't have to do it ourselves."
"AWS does not have EKS cluster backup."
"The AWS UIs are not the most intuitive. Also, the usability needs room for improvement."
"There could be a feature to simplify the process without the requirement of any patch manager subscription."
"Improving integration could lead to a more unified management experience for multiple operating systems within our data center."
"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."
"They could make it more easy to use and improve the GUI so that it's more intuitive."
"The dashboard of Satellite is not encouraging. It does not adequately showcase all the functionality it offers."
"The product's automation capabilities need enhancement."
"It has not been significantly updated in a while."
"I would like the direct integration with insights to be re-established."
AWS Systems Manager is ranked 6th in Configuration Management with 7 reviews while Red Hat Satellite is ranked 4th in Configuration Management with 22 reviews. AWS Systems Manager is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Satellite is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AWS Systems Manager writes "Offers a variety of automation options; simplifies governance and administration ". On the other hand, 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". AWS Systems Manager is most compared with Microsoft Configuration Manager, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, AWS CloudFormation, BigFix and Chef, whereas Red Hat Satellite is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, SUSE Manager, Microsoft Configuration Manager, BigFix and vCenter Configuration Manager. See our AWS Systems Manager vs. Red Hat Satellite 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.