We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

BigFix Alternatives and Competitors

Get our free report covering Microsoft, Red Hat, Tanium, and other competitors of BigFix. Updated: October 2021.
542,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of BigFix alternatives and competitors

JackSmith1
Security Engineer at a retailer with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
Establishes patching policies that continuously work with minimal effort

Pros and Cons

  • "Coming from prior solutions that were a lot more effort, Automox's patch management abilities are transformational. When I took over patching at my company, they were using on-premise architecture to patch. As the workforce shifted from being in the office into their home offices, I was able to lift and shift with no effort other than deploying the new agent out into the environment."
  • "There should be better inventory capabilities. Right now, they only allow you to have insight into software out-of-the-box. It would be nice to also extend that into custom inventory that can be modified and managed by the practitioner."

What is our primary use case?

My primary use cases for Automox are for patching, configuration management, and support. Our help desk receives tickets and we use Automox to create solutions that the help desk can use in an automated fashion rather than having to manually do the work. We have created ways to help them work faster.

How has it helped my organization?

A big benefit is Automox's ability to automate repetitive tasks for our help desk. If the VPN breaks, we can just click a button and fix the VPN for that person. If the software is having a hard time, we can run solutions to remove and reinstall that software rapidly so that they can get back to supporting the next person in line. Especially as our company is growing exponentially, Automox helps us scale rapidly because we can't just hire a bunch of help desk people and have them up and running quickly. Automox allows that particular effort to be a little bit more seamless. Almost every person that has the tool absolutely loves it.

It is very important to us that it is a cloud-native platform. Software as a Service means that I'm not maintaining internal architecture, servers, licensing, and the likes to keep it online or High Availability if I need it. I don't have to think about any of that because it's just there.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is its ability to establish patching policies that continuously work with minimal effort. That's important to me because I am a long-time configuration management person and have dealt with other tools that require me to build the schedule up manually each time to create the list of patches. The value-add is that I'm not doing those two steps. The former step of building out lists of patches is the most important to have to deploy. The third-party patches require a lot more effort and Automox has taken that work off of my plate. That is a lot of work that a practitioner would have to do every single month. I am able to be more focused on patching compliance rather than building up patching, which has more value.

I patch across Windows, Mac iOS, and Linux. If I split it, it would be 90% Windows, 8% Mac, and 2% Linux.

Coming from prior solutions that were a lot more effort, Automox's patch management abilities are transformational. When I took over patching at my company, they were using on-premise architecture to patch. As the workforce shifted from being in the office into home offices, I was able to lift and shift with no effort other than deploying the new agent out into the environment.

Automox's console for patch management is very successful. There are some challenges in regards to third parties that change how they deploy software. Examples would include how Adobe or Oracle approach some of their third-party tools. From an Operating System standpoint, they're well on their way. In the time that I've been with them, they have overcome the challenges of feature updates in Windows and I think they'll also overcome the challenges of major updates across Mac and Linux in due time. 

In terms of how much time Automox saves us, I've had a few examples in my environment where I can explicitly point out how much time savings there is. One example was replacing Office 32-bit with 64-bit. We wrote a worklist to do it and that saved each interaction roughly an hour. There were about 300 people that wanted to do it. We were able to multiply that effort, remove 30 minutes and turn it into two minutes of effort. Over time, we're saving at least 40 to 80 hours a month due to all the different features that Automox is helping us automate.

I use their Worklets to create and automate customized tasks across endpoints. I heavily rely on Worklets across many aspects of the company. I have created Worklets to manage drivers, security configurations, and software management. It's way faster than expected, coming from traditional tools that take forever for policy to download. Manually deploying a payload to it running on an endpoint is almost instantaneous. It's so fast.

In terms of Automox's ease of use, I have multiple help desk individuals operating within the tool and building Worklets who have less experience in the field. From being able to take people with fewer capabilities and helping them be highly successful, the tool is much easier than it was with prior configuration management tools that I've used in the past.

We use their API to review clients to check how to pull back some of the Worklets that we've used that are doing inventory-type or compliance-type checks to build out custom reports. The API is almost an extension to every script that we can run.

What needs improvement?

It is still a challenge but not impossible to patch solutions like Adobe via Automox. It just requires me to go back to some of my older techniques and older tool belt items. I still have to reach back out to some of my old ways of doing work and accomplish it that way, but it's not impossible. Where there are gaps in their automation, there are ways for me to fill those gaps. They haven't left me high and dry. They've still left me with a way to work around it. It might be a little effort, but I can get there.

There should be better inventory capabilities. Right now, they only allow you to have insight into software out-of-the-box. It would be nice to also extend that into custom inventory that can be modified and managed by the practitioner. 

It would also be really great if every device that's in Automox is limited to a single group and you can only apply policy to that one group. It would be nice to put a computer in multiple groups and apply different policies to different systems. I might only have seven or eight systems that I want to do a very specific config on, and in order to be able to do that, I have to use the API to make that a reality in another automation. Automox is short. I'm able to use the API or manual effort to get past it. They should improve the experience so that less technically skilled people can also be just as successful as a higher skilled person.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Automox for 11 to 13 months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

In terms of stability, Automox is equal to other tools I've used. I tend to run into problems with systems on every network. It's to be expected. It's always difficult to be 100%. Automox is very comparative to keeping the stability across the board as far as clients staying healthy and online and continue working without intervention. It's very similar to other tools in the industry. From an entire solution perspective, it's almost always online. When there is an incident, they give me updates every 20 minutes as to what the status is. They have really good incident responses when it does go down. Overall, my impression has been very positive. It hasn't caused me any significant constraints on my company's ability to perform.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It scales with my environment quite well. I don't have to think about it. I started out with 1,000 devices and quickly went above that. I found a surprise bill and then was able to come up with a solution and put a guardrail up so that I wouldn't go over my licensing. Today I'm using it for 1,500 points. Within the next year, I'll probably be using it for 2,500 endpoints.

Four to five people work on Automox on a regular basis. We have security, systems engineering, and help desk workers. 

How are customer service and technical support?

Support is very quick to respond. The support personnel are knowledgeable and they tend to be very positive in their interactions. They have a genuine "I want to help you solve the problem" feel. I've used them multiple times and they've taught me a thing or two, and hopefully, I've taught them a thing or two along the way. It's more of a partnership to me.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Prior to Automox, I've used WSS, SCCM, PsExec, and PDQ Deploy to manage the infrastructures for these particular outcomes.

I switched to Automox because we can go from zero to hero with all of our complex needs really fast. We don't have to have the infrastructure. We don't have to have highly skilled individuals. We simply just need to turn it on and start doing what we need to do and the rest takes care of itself. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was straightforward. I set up my environment in the course of three hours across about 600 endpoints.

I used my existing tools to push the product and then I used other tools to find the gaps and made an effort to close them manually very quickly. There was no plan. We just stumbled through the implementation. That's a testament to how easy the deployment is. You can come in without a plan and tackle it with no problem at all.

It was very easy to set up policies. They're rather straightforward. The user interface is very pointed. It keeps you aware of what you're doing. My only critique is that they should explicitly call out and make a policy event. Building the policies is rather intuitive. You can go in without any prior knowledge and build a policy without messing it up on the first try.

What was our ROI?

There has certainly been a return on the time spent accomplishing the tasks and accomplishing tasks that we didn't even think would save us time, but it ultimately did. We have also seen a return in our ability to patch everything and keep it compliant. Our vulnerability management program measures this and so far has been a success.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

There are no additional costs in addition to the extended licensing fees with Automox. You get support and per endpoint license with what you purchased.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I looked at ConnectWise, BigFix, and considered Cisco Meraki System Manager. I considered going towards SCCM for that. Out of all of them, I couldn't see any other product besides Automox that would get me where I needed to go as fast as I needed to go.

It is much cheaper to go with the cloud-native solution than it was for on-prem. There's a trade-off there. There's a lot of functionality and features that you don't have with Automox that you would have with some of these on-prem solutions that just don't exist yet.

For example, the ability to push policy control, Bit-Locker control, remote access, or having a self-service software portal for any employee to log into a portal and say, "Hey, I need Adobe reader." They click a button and they now have Adobe reader. We still have to rely on our help desk to call in and ask for said software and then we can use Automox to push it. It would be really great to have that ability. 

What other advice do I have?

If I've installed the solution, I do not have complete visibility, but I definitely know the endpoint is there or if it's missing patches or any configurations that I custom make.

The free trial of Automox was really important in our decision to go with it so that we could know how it really works. It's one thing to read a review or have them tell you how great their product is. It's another to see it working in real-time and especially working in one environment with all the different pieces they might have that could potentially make it harder to work. The trial is important for that consideration.

My advice to anybody considering Automox would be to think about potentially investing in the API ahead of time because if I was to do it all over again, I think I would put source control around anything getting pushed into Automox, and I would probably set it up to where I would use the API to create policy. I'd use the API to push the code that sits in that policy. I think everything would be pushed through source control that way versus using the web console to log in and push all that. Every time you go in and make a change, there's really no history there. The only thing I would change about the implementation is to focus a little bit more on how to manage it over time and make some modifications to it.

I would rate Automox a ten out of ten. 

Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
DE
Linux Platform System Administrator at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5
Its agentless, making the deployment fast and easy

Pros and Cons

  • "It has improved our organization through provisioning and security hardening. When we do get a new VM, we have been able to bring on a provisioned machine in less than a day. This morning alone, I provisioned two machines within an hour. I am talking about hardening, installing antivirus software on it, and creating user accounts because the Playbooks were predesigned. From the time we got the servers to the actual hand-off, it takes less than an hour. We are talking about having the servers actually authenticate Red Hat Satellites and run the yum updates. All of that can be done within an hour."
  • "When you set up Playbooks, I may have one version of the Playbook, but another member of the team may have a different vision, and we will not know which version is correct. We want to have one central repository for managing the different versions of Playbooks, so we can have better collaboration among team members. This is our use case for using Git version control."

What is our primary use case?

We use it for patching and configuration management.

We are a healthcare institution. We have less than 500 hosts. Ansible is used between the infrastructure and applications, and primarily has Red Hat as the OS.

How has it helped my organization?

It has improved our organization through provisioning and security hardening. When we do get a new VM, we have been able to bring on a provisioned machine in less than a day. This morning alone, I provisioned two machines within an hour. I am talking about hardening, installing antivirus software on it, and creating user accounts because the Playbooks were predesigned. From the time we got the servers to the actual hand-off, it takes less than an hour. We are talking about having the servers actually authenticate Red Hat Satellites and run the yum updates. All of that can be done within an hour.

What is most valuable?

  • Ad-hoc commands
  • Playbooks
  • Setting up and deleting users
  • Patching
  • Using it for quick and dirty deployment of scripts.

The YAML syntax is easy to use, but it takes some getting used to. I feel like Microsoft Visual Studio helps with the YAML syntax, lining it up correctly. However, if you're doing it from the command line without actual spacing, that could be a little problematic. The new version of Visual Studio is quite helpful because Git is integrated with it. The YAML markdowns are also in place. My staff doesn't need special coding skills to use it.

We have multiple Playbooks to configure a server. We can break it up or make one main YAML script to push out all the individual dependencies.

What needs improvement?

When you set up Playbooks, I may have one version of the Playbook, but another member of the team may have a different vision, and we will not know which version is correct. We want to have one central repository for managing the different versions of Playbooks, so we can have better collaboration among team members. This is our use case for using Git version control.

Collaboration across teams is a great goal to accomplish, but that would necessitate more visibility to other teams of what Ansible is capable of with the database teams and other individual applications. Because we have so many applications, I don't know if they are aware of how Ansible could be beneficial to them. That would necessitate a broader conversation within the IT infrastructure application teams.

While it saves time with fewer moves, there could be still room for improvement because we do not actually manage the VMs. Instead, this is managed by the Windows team, who spins up the VM. Then, once the VM is handed off, we do the security hardening. If we received the request from the application owner to spin up the VM to hand it off, then we could take that entire process and get it streamlined. Whereas, it is handled by a different team right now.

It would be great if we could leverage Ansible Tower and Red Hat Satellites more. 

API integration would help because right now our security team uses Splunk, and they are independent of my team, which is the Unix team. Therefore, if we could tie in Splunk with products, like Ansible, Cylance, and Rubrik for backup, then we could get all that information in a central console. We have not previously raised this suggestion because our Ansible Engine needs to be upgraded so we can get support for the Ansible product.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using Ansible for at least four years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We have not had any issues with Ansible. One of the projects that we have allocated for this year is to migrate our control station from RHEL 6 to RHEL 7.

We really don't have anyone maintaining it. It was a plug and play solution. We downloaded Ansible and ran it, because everyone knows how to use Ansible on the team at this point. Right now, I am trying to get to the next phase of using Git to set up more version control.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is excellent.

Four guys use it on the Unix team.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We were previously using Bash scripting. 

We did try BigFix for two years. However, because of costs, Ansible proved to be better cost-wise. The licensing fee was a big issue with using BigFix. Control from the BigFix perspective was a concern, because you were locked into the GUI. With Ansible, we were able to do everything from the command line and touch the entire environment from the command line. Once you use BigFix and an issue, you then have to log out or go into the box from one of the servers, but you were locked into the GUI in BigFix.

How was the initial setup?

It is agentless. All we had to do is set up the control station, then Python was installed on all our Linux hosts. So, it was easy. The deployment took less than an hour.

The SSH keys were already in place. We already had the account, where we tested it out beforehand. Therefore, we knew exactly what we needed to do to deploy it. The keys were the hardest thing to set up and that was already in place (prior to Ansible).

What about the implementation team?

The entire Linux group of four guys was involved in the deployment. We never had to use Red Hat resources to set up Ansible.

What was our ROI?

Ansible is primarily used for provisioning or hardening our servers. The realization of getting a server from testing to actual production is very short in our environment because the processes have been streamlined. Before Ansible, the processes were a lot more unwieldy. We went from a week to less than a day where you can get your server hardened, provisioned, and handed off to the application owner.

Costs are negligible when using Ansible. The costs are just learning to use the solution's various options. We save time and efficiency versus other solutions.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We have tested out Ansible Tower, but there is a budget issue, so that is in our next phase.

Red Hat's open source approach was a factor when choosing Ansible, since the solution is free as of right now.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We have Red Hat Satellites and looked into Red Hat Insights, which we are still not fully deployed on yet. The integration between Red Hat solutions is seamless.

We looked into BigFix. I also looked at SaltStack and Puppet, but didn't get anywhere with that. I wanted something that had ease from a management perspective. Other solutions besides Ansible needed us to use agents, and I felt that would cause too many problems. Management didn't want a disruption of servers or downtime. I couldn't give them the assurance that installing something with an agent would not cause issues. So, this affected our decision to go with Ansible.

I don't think any product that we looked into could compare to Ansible.

What other advice do I have?

Test the environment because it is easy to use. Once you are proficient with Unix and Linux, it is extremely easy to use it: Setting up the inventory system, YAML files, and SSH keys.

I have no complaints about Ansible. I just wish I had more time to really delve into it.

I think we not using Ansible to its fullest potential, because of:

  1. Training.
  2. Time.
  3. Not knowing all the options available.

I haven't been exposed to Ansible Tower much. I have only tested it out three times. Right now, I am a little rusty on it, so it will take some getting used to again. It is more GUI-based, so it is pretty user-friendly.

The biggest lesson learnt: There are multiple ways of doing the same thing.

I would rate this solution as a nine (out of 10) because of the configuration management for all our servers in the environment. It can be used within the networking field for all devices, such as Cisco switches. The solution speaks to Windows hosts as well. It just takes time to use all the functionality and get it visible across the organization.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
SS
User at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
MSP
Top 20
Stable with an easy initial setup and good batch management

Pros and Cons

  • "The initial setup is fairly straightforward."
  • "The solution is a bit heavy on the sources such as RAM or CPU and the software needs to be a bit lighter."

What is most valuable?

The new CMD features are excellent. It is like a cloud environment gateway. 

The batch management is very helpful. The software deployment happens in there. 

There are many features relevant to many of our clients.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward.

What needs improvement?

The interface needs to be a little bit simpler. Right now, it's a bit hard to navigate with ease.

The integration capabilities could be better. They need to expand this aspect of their product.

The solution is a bit heavy on the sources such as RAM or CPU and the software needs to be a bit lighter.

SCCM does not support Linux and Unix. That has been deprecated and is no longer there. 

It would be ideal if the solution came with more features supporting Mac, then it would be a better product.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is quite stable. We haven't really dealt with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

You can scale it up if you need to. You can add the client servers, for example. I've had multiple primary sites that I get as I go. A company that needs to scale can do so with relative ease.

We deal with companies that are often medium-sized or enterprise-level.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support is good. It's provided by Microsoft and we have lots of cases with Microsoft. They have been able to support us effectively so far. We're satisfied with the support so far.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

SCCM has been the only product that we have worked on. We haven't used anything else. We haven't worked with BigFix or anything like that.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is easy. It's not overly complex. That said, anyone who's doing it needs to be a bit clever. It's not for people with little technological background. There is a bit of research required. You need to learn a bit about the product for effective deployment.

What about the implementation team?

We handle the deployments for clients.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I don't deal with the pricing. I'm not aware of the costs in general. I can't say if it's reasonable or expensive. It's not my area of expertise.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I haven't really evaluated other solutions. However, I just received a proposal from one of our sales associates, and the company had BigFix. They were trying to move on to SCCM. They had some questions regarding whether the same features would be available in SCCM or not. That's the reason I went to do some comparisons.

What other advice do I have?

We are Microsoft partners. I'm a consultant. This solution is being used by my client's companies.

We are using the latest version of the solution, which is 2010.

I would recommend SCCM based on the requirement of the customers. However, if they are looking for Unix and Linux support, which is no longer in SCCM, I'd recommend BigFix. That solution is better for Unix and Linux.

Anybody who wants to implement SCCM should do some research online, depending upon what features they want. Once they see that SCCM will be able to manage, will be able to resolve their issues, they should choose it. However, they need to look for a partner, a Microsoft partner, that can take help from them for deployment purposes.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If the product used less resources, I would rate it higher

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: partner
Flag as inappropriate
Tom Piotrowski
Group Chairman at Unixpac
Reseller
Top 5
Easy to use, robust, and the technical support is good

Pros and Cons

  • "It is very easy to use, as well as extremely efficient and accurate."
  • "Customers sometimes ask about non-existent features, and we pass these requests on to Ivanti."

What is our primary use case?

We are a reseller of this technology and not end-users.

Our clients use it to for automatically patching their software.

What is most valuable?

This is an extremely robust product. It now has almost 20 years of history.

It is very easy to use, as well as extremely efficient and accurate. Most of our customers just set it and forget it. They install it, and it does all of the automatic patching, month after month.

What needs improvement?

Customers sometimes ask about non-existent features, and we pass these requests on to Ivanti.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have worked with Ivanti since 2004.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I have never had negative feedback from a customer about something that didn't work.

When there has been feedback, it is about the patches themselves. This is a patching product that grabs available patches for a given application. For example, if an application from Adobe has a problem in the patch then it might manifest itself. However, that is the result of the patch and not the patching solution that was at fault.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability has not been an issue. We have clients with as few as five systems and clients with as many as 30,000.

How are customer service and technical support?

Occasionally, we have to use technical support. We don't normally have problems but sometimes customers will ask about non-existing features and want to know if there is a workaround available. This is typically when we reach out to them. In our experience, they have been pretty good.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We have had experience with our clients using similar products like BigFix and the SolarWinds Patch Manager. We assisted them in switching to Ivanti because their previous solution was too cumbersome or too complicated.

There have been other solutions from vendors such as Kaspersky and IBM, as well. We stay focused on Ivanti because we are confident in the product.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is very straightforward and it takes just minutes to deploy.

There are two versions of this product available. One of them is complete and standalone, which comes with its own patching engine and does the scanning from a selected workstation. The other version taps into Microsoft SCCM, so you have to have the SCCM process running, and then it will just augment it with third-party applications.

The one that works with SCCM takes perhaps 15 to 20 minutes to deploy, whereas the standalone product takes about ten minutes longer.

What about the implementation team?

Most of our customers take this product "as is" and install it themselves. Our after-sales support is minimal because they usually know how to use it.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The price depends on which version is being licensed. For the one that works with SCCM, it is relatively inexpensive at $8 USD per node, yearly. The standalone product has two versions; the one that patches servers is about $45 USD annually and the version that patches workstations is about half that price at $22 USD.

There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees. It is a term-based license that includes support for one, two, or three years at a time.

What other advice do I have?

This is a product that we have been selling for 16 years and I recommend it with no hesitation.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller
VK
Technical Consultant at Aon Corporation
Real User
Top 20
Offers privileged features and has fast asset discovery

Pros and Cons

  • "I'm not so familiar with the tool but I like the interaction of the console to the picture. Patching is the primary model I have been focusing on for the last couple of weeks. So I have created a proof of concept environment and have been checking the available features."
  • "Most of the time, agent-relative issues have to be more equipped with self-healing features. At times, the agent is there, but for some reason, it doesn't report a status. It gives certain problems that are obviously agent-based."

What is our primary use case?

We also use BigFix. Our primary use case for Tanium is for tool consolidation. Tanium is already equipped with multiple capabilities that BigFix has. These are almost parallel tools, running with similar kinds of capabilities. We are planning to flip to Tanium, which might primarily be used as a management solution. Overall, we use Tanium to interact and discover related queries. It is also used as our system information and event management tool. 

What is most valuable?

I'm not so familiar with the tool but I like the interaction of the console to the picture. Patching is the primary model I have been focusing on for the last couple of weeks. So I have created a proof of concept environment and have been checking the available features.

What needs improvement?

Tanium comes with multiple models, so definitely the threat protection is the primary opportunity area my organization is looking for. It is going to be primarily used for event collection, which is being fed into our centralized tools for tracing any kind of vulnerability or any kind of uneven situation. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Tanium for six months. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

In my area environment, we are using this for event collection. We are trying to explore the virtual environment and the compliance evaluation of overall tools. At the first stage, it captures very lightly from servers. It scans the event. They are pretty basic, so from a performance aspect, we have not seen any issues so far.

When we try to use it for patch deployment, we're going to deploy a bigger package and we'll see. We'll put more load on the environment then we'll see how efficient it is. But at this stage, we have not used it. 

How are customer service and technical support?

I have never interacted with technical support. At this stage, my subordinate group is handling it. But they are pretty satisfied with the experience.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Tanium has certain privileged features compared to BigFix.

It has offline patching. 

How was the initial setup?

It's definitely not complex. It is pretty user-friendly and it's a solid tool enterprise to use. It is equipped with whatever generic solutions are available within marketing a parallel kind of tool. There are a couple of other tool environments that give it a cutting edge. It is flexible. 

The best part about it is that it is very fast in terms of deployment. It is fast in terms of gathering information but it works with a peer mechanism. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

From a licensing perspective, it is a bit expensive if I do compare them with basic settings. It is nearly two or two and a half times more expensive. 

What other advice do I have?

From a tool perspective, it is capable. I do not want to comment on how efficient it is because ultimately, I'm not aware of its capability. My opinion is that it is definitely a capable tool and it all depends on planning. It's about how to plan your implementation and leverage its available features. It is very fast. Asset discovery is also very fast.

I would rate Tanium a nine out of ten. 

Most of the time, agent-relative issues have to be more equipped with self-healing features. At times, the agent is there, but for some reason, it doesn't report a status. It gives certain problems that are obviously agent-based.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Get our free report covering Microsoft, Red Hat, Tanium, and other competitors of BigFix. Updated: October 2021.
542,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.