We performed a comparison between ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus and Quest KACE Systems Management 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."The solution's technical support is top-notch. Whenever I have a question, they get back to me immediately, which is probably one of the best features of the solution's technical support."
"ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus covers almost all my end devices, and I can easily look over my device's hardware status."
"The initial setup was easy."
"You can create remote sessions for client systems."
"The most valuable features are patch management and mobile device management."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"The ability to deploy patches seamlessly is the solution's most valuable aspect. It allows us to not only deploy patches but to monitor the deployment of those patches."
"Asset management is most valuable. It is essential for all customers. The other features are also useful, but asset management is most important."
"Using this solution saves us lots of time, especially when it comes to performing updates."
"The scripting is a very valuable feature, as it saves us time on pushing certain things out to the users, such as software and patches."
"We're able to deploy software and push out fixes to endpoints faster than ever."
"The most valuable feature of KACE is the mass package deployment. There are a lot of endpoint management solutions in the market. The way KACE responds is with the installation management feature, which is done in a very intelligent way, as well as scripting. It's wow. It's really wow. On top of that, there is a mass undeployment feature as well."
"We can get the majority of what we need with this product and do not have to spend money on something else."
"I can reach people now that I couldn't have reached previously. We are saving about 25 percent in time."
"The ability to build scripts right on the deployment center itself, as well as building groups that take those scripts/task chains has been absolutely invaluable and one of the most important parts of my whole environment."
"The solution should have a customer label where we can label those servers or include those servers for specific customers."
"The agent can be a bit more intelligent."
"The tool's support needs improvement."
"The cloud version should have option to add all the endpoints using the agent. Not only for Windows, but also the Linux version. There are some versions which are not compatible with SaaS Manager. So some customers do not want to use the latest version of Linux latest version of CentOS. Actually, CentOS is not available. But some are using and patch manager is compatible for some versions only, not older older versions. So there are some pros and cons that are referred to patch management."
"There are limitations to this solution when we are working with iOS, Apple laptops or desktops such as the Mac and iMac."
"The solution's UI is an area that requires improvement."
"The solution's initial setup is not straightforward, and we have to customize it with our relevant features."
"They should add better features for managing hardware."
"We had issues with the tool's support. We are a Dutch firm and everything has to be in Dutch. We were not able to do the alerts. You were required to tweak them a lot to get them in the language that you preferred. The solution's support depended on the person that you got online. Sometimes, the response was fast and other times you needed to wait a long time. The support also depended on the levels of support that you had requested."
"Sometimes the information is not as real time as it's supposed to be."
"The K1000 doesn't communicate well with some clients without SMB. There are some issues with getting things to image correctly because they rely on SMB, and SMB is a protocol that is being removed due to security reasons. Organizations are trying to rely less and less on SMB. I know Quest is aware of it. They've talked about having a new version that wouldn't rely on SMB for connection to the clients, but they haven't gotten there yet."
"The problem is that it's harder to directly emulate a lot of the stuff that the group policies do, using the KACE solution. With regular group policies, you just specify the various settings you want to change on the workstations, and then you specify the workstations and—while it's kind of an ugly mess—it does it. Whereas on KACE, you really have to know what you're doing with scripting to effectively script those exact same changes."
"I still need better communication about which processes are really due and which processes are currently being processed. According to the initial setup service provider, there is still no real management or overview on KACE where you can really see 100 percent of what is going on as well as what is going to be processed next and whether I can influence the overall process. It could really help me if I knew, e.g. exactly in 10 minutes my colleague will be supplied with this or that software. I haven't found this yet. If they could add this, that would be cool. It is still missing and I haven't yet found something like this."
"When we have to do a rebuild on these machines, although it is rare, I would like to be able to do more than 10 at a time. With the current limit, it slows me down because I have to set up 10, then the next 10, and so forth."
"I think it should have the ability to have the applications automatically update. It would be really helpful if this would override what the user might choose to do."
"What could be improved is the possibility to use replicas in a secure way outside our network in order to maintain the machines that never connect to our corporate network."
More ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Quest KACE Systems Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is ranked 7th in Patch Management with 12 reviews while Quest KACE Systems Management is ranked 6th in Patch Management with 38 reviews. ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is rated 8.4, while Quest KACE Systems Management is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus writes "Good scalability and a responsive tech support team ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest KACE Systems Management writes "Easy to use, saves us time, and increases IT productivity". ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is most compared with Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, BigFix, Microsoft Configuration Manager, ManageEngine Endpoint Central and ManageEngine Patch Connect Plus, whereas Quest KACE Systems Management is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, BigFix and Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune. See our ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus vs. Quest KACE Systems Management 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.