We performed a comparison between Bigfix and Microsoft Windows Server Update Services based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: BigFix wins out in this comparison. The main difference between the two solutions is that Microsoft Windows Server Update Services users say deployment is complicated and that the product could benefit from better reporting.
"Being able to intelligently create reports, gather data, export CSVs and give that to the leadership of some of the client groups that my team supports has helped my organization."
"The patch management and the BigFix Inventory have been the most valuable features."
"I’ve found patching to be the most valuable feature of the solution."
"It has improved my organization because we can automate a lot of tasks. We went from manually patching machines or doing our best and having very little visibility into it to us being able to set it and forget it and getting really good results on first-pass patching."
"Software distribution and patch management are the most valuable."
"All the vendor patches are synchronized automatically."
"It's good for reporting hardware and software."
"The most valuable features of the solution are Windows patching and the hardware and software inventory."
"Setup is very simple and straightforward."
"It's a scalable product."
"The solution gives authentic updates."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is an easy-to-use and stable solution."
"Instead of leaving each server to download their own updates, with WSUS you have a centralized management tool for all the updates alongside a log for all the servers. By creating and deploying a WSUS server that will download the updates from the internet and dispatch them to the other servers, you can have control over the entire deployment process."
"The platform provides good value in terms of time and effort by eliminating the need for manual patch management."
"This solution is stable."
"The central points of managing product updates have been the tool's most valuable features."
"The reporting structure could be a little more simplistic. Currently, it throws too many vulnerabilities. Some of them are not needed because they are only informational and limitations, and they are not of much help. It doesn't need to show us these things."
"To make it a ten they should improve the licensing. Second, if they could have one environment for everything it would be nice. For you to install compliance you need to install the server, and then you add the modules. For you to install inventory you install the server and then you add the modules. It's not easy to do. When I was doing it before I learned it, it was not straight forward."
"Its pricing should be improved. It is too costly."
"I'm looking for them to make big web UI improvements."
"There is no support for patch management on SLES on IBM pSeries (only the Intel platform is supported)."
"I would eventually like to see a SaaS offering, a cloud-hosted BigFix instance where we only have to put a relay in our environment."
"I want to see a solution for being able to deploy automated software to a Mac running OS X 10.13, something that's going to deal with kernel exceptions and answering prompts for user permissions for data folders and whatnot. They need to really streamline and automate the Mac software deployment."
"BigFix can improve the way machines report back to the console. In the external relay management environment, it has become more of a hybrid environment with most of the machines not being on-site. The need of having public-facing reporting items interconnected is becoming more and more crucial. In general, the reporting could use some enhancement."
"The old backup files created by this solution use up a lot of storage, and this needs to be improved."
"Having the ability to group updates by the operating systems would be very helpful."
"The solution's stability could be improved because sometimes, there are some problems in communication and sending updates and patches."
"The only complex part was the solution’s tricky setup phase."
"The database could be improved. In large environments, for example, we often get problems with reporting."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services must include functions for providing updates about inventory."
"The product needs to improve its user interface."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could improve the ease of use."
More Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Pricing and Cost Advice →
BigFix is ranked 2nd in Patch Management with 91 reviews while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is ranked 3rd in Patch Management with 38 reviews. BigFix is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of BigFix writes "Very stable and easy to deploy with excellent patch compliance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services writes "Lets us manage all our organization's updates from a single management console". BigFix is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Tanium, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, whereas Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is most compared with ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Quest KACE Systems Management, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune and GFI LanGuard. See our BigFix vs. Microsoft Windows Server Update Services 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.