"To me, the most valuable feature of Clarity CA is the timesheet. It's the only feature I use because I just support the tool, and I just enter time on it. Others use Clarity CA for other purposes, such as resource management, project management, scheduling, and financials. The tool also has a fairly simple integration with other systems, so at the moment, it's working fine. I also like that you can write your own code in Clarity CA, and you can make changes to it based on your needs."
"The stability is very good."
"I like being able to image over the network. That's a nice feature that it has. Patch management is pretty decent on it as well."
"The initial setup process is good."
"Very good, functional solution for endpoint management."
"It's a complete product that allows you to remote troubleshoot, has an inventory of systems."
"We can scale the product."
"The solution is definitely scalable."
"We use the product to know about our assets and manage remote support."
"What could be improved in Clarity CA is its UI, but I know the Clarity team is working on a new UI, so I'm expecting its UI to get better. The software also has too many functions, so it would be good if the functions or features could be split up, rather than needing to buy the whole Clarity CA package, when you'll only use a few of its functions. This increases the cost of the software, so that's another area for improvement. How Clarity CA is marketed could also be improved."
"The team should work on improving the stability, particularly with massive patches deployment, clients are not 100% getting patches and the information provided by the system does not help; more detailed report would be very useful."
"ManageEngine Endpoint Central’s scalability could be improved."
"ManageEngine could be improved by giving customers an option to perform certain actions proactively. Since I was a consultant, I worked on different products and some had advantages over ManageEngine. For example, proactive remediation—you want to proactively check something on the computers and run the script. In ManageEngine, you have the option to run the script, but Intune has the option to do so proactively. ManageEngine doesn't have this. You should have the option to act proactively, not just going ahead and fixing it once it's done. Proactive remediation should be a feature."
"The product must provide more API integrations with different ERP tools."
"ManageEngine Desktop Central is very limited. When you scan your system, it will only recognize Microsoft Windows Defender and BitLocker."
"ManageEngine Desktop Central should keep up with some of the features that other major vendors are providing, such as Microsoft."
"The pricing could be a bit better."
"The performance sometimes lags a bit because the solution is demanding on system resources."
More ManageEngine Endpoint Central Pricing and Cost Advice →
Clarity CA is ranked 3rd in Client Desktop Management with 2 reviews while ManageEngine Endpoint Central is ranked 1st in Client Desktop Management with 59 reviews. Clarity CA is rated 8.0, while ManageEngine Endpoint Central is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Clarity CA writes "Multipurpose and useful for managing projects and resources; easy to integrate with other systems, and has a knowledgeable technical support team". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ManageEngine Endpoint Central writes "An in-depth and intuitive product with good cross-platform capabilities, but they should have a more global support channel". Clarity CA is most compared with Microsoft Configuration Manager, whereas ManageEngine Endpoint Central is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, VMware Workspace ONE, Jamf Pro and ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus.
See our list of best Client Desktop Management vendors.
We monitor all Client Desktop 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.