We performed a comparison between Cisco Meraki Systems Manager (MDM+EMM) and ManageEngine Endpoint Central based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the UEM capabilities."
"There is a single pane of glass for user access and a single sign-on facility for the user. If you have already logged in to Microsoft Azure or on-premises, you can redirect directly to Microsoft Endpoint Manager, monitor all your security threats, and analyze the data associated with the application in a single, unified way."
"It's not working perfectly, but Microsoft's Autopilot offers great visibility into automated deployment solutions."
"The solution appears to be stable and scalable."
"Microsoft Endpoint Manager is not expensive overall, especially for small environments."
"The standout features of Intune are its excellent mobile device management and highly effective application management capabilities."
"The ability to push applications on devices is valuable. You do not have to manually install applications one by one. If you like to use ten different applications, you do not have to manually go and download them one by one. Intune can compile a package for you, and then you can just push them from the admin center."
"The most valuable feature is the policy CSPs."
"Security is the main feature because the company is reliable."
"The UI is easy to learn."
"The best features of Cisco Meraki Systems Manager include its simplicity and ease of use. It is straightforward to set up and manage devices compared to other products."
"The most valuable features include remote inventory analysis, security features like geofencing, and software distribution."
"The solution is simple."
"I have found the location analytics feature that is built into the APs to be the most valuable. It allows you to compare data and to single out individuals who are repeatedly coming into your store. We can observe different trends. This is what separates it from a lot of the other solutions."
"The proprietary standards and modules are the most valuable features."
"It’s helped us manage our endpoints."
"The most valuable feature of ManageEngine Endpoint Central is the central management console. Additionally, inventory tracking is helpful for knowing where our assets are."
"ManageEngine Desktop Central automatically alerts you if there are newer releases or updates. You do not have to go to their website and check."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"The stability is great."
"Very good, functional solution for endpoint management."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The solution's most valuable features are its patch management capabilities, especially for third-party applications, along with quick and easy configuration and deployment processes."
"Identification of gaps and filling the gaps with updates are most valuable. We are able to identify known updates or missing updates and then update."
"The UI also needs improvements because it is complex for end-users. We have had feedback from a few users in our organization who found the UI is not feasible for tracking and analyzing all the processes and monitoring all the devices."
"Additional application deployment options e.g. MSI deployment with more complex parameters or additional side-by-side files, and non-MSI deployment options."
"The main disadvantage seen today is regarding Linux clients. We have a lot of development resources that have Linux on their clients, and we can't manage them on the same platform, as we do with other clients such as macOS and Windows. So, it should have support for Linux clients. It should also have better support for macOS."
"The most important thing is reporting. They should improve their reporting. They should give a free hand to users. In SCCM, I can create my own reports. For example, in SCCM, I can create an inventory report for my PC or for all PCs, but in Intune, we don't have an option to create any report. Microsoft claims that Intune is a successor of SCCM, but SCCM is more powerful than Intune. So, they should develop Intune more and make it equivalent to SCCM. Then, their product will be great in the market."
"There could be more wizard-driven policy development or creation. Some of the policies can get quite complex. If they have a wizard that assists the administrators in creating the policy, that will be a great job."
"Sometimes, updating a client policy is very difficult. This needs to be improved."
"I expect Microsoft Intune to have more features in the cloud because there are two major functionalities that we need to be added. This is software metering and license management. These functionalities, for now, must be on-premise. For this purpose, we have set up a SQL Server and I hope that in near future this option will be in the cloud in Microsoft Intune."
"I have a lot of Apple products in my environment. It would be nice to have an improved integration of Apple products with Microsoft Intune without Jam."
"The tool's pricing needs to be more flexible like Cisco's."
"The solution can be expensive."
"Meraki is limiting our connections."
"There are problems with the connection on the client side, and the app that was deployed could be better."
"Cisco's authorized scripting can be complicated. For example, we sometimes enter the wrong code using this script, and then we had to dictate to find the problem."
"One area for improvement in Cisco Meraki Systems Manager is the ability for more advanced users to make detailed and non-standard changes."
"Integration with other tools, such as, ConnectWise Automate."
"It doesn't seem to be able to establish some VPN tunnels with other devices in a particular way that such as an ASA can do for us."
"The solution is expensive."
"In relation to ManageEngine Endpoint Central, ManageEngine NGAV seems to be completely useless right now."
"The reporting analytics could improve in ManageEngine Desktop Central. However, there are some third-party add-ins or modules you can purchase to do reporting analytics."
"Documentation could improve so we don't need to create the support requests first."
"The solution should be better at integrating with other solutions."
"The only problem with it is that the setup isn't very intuitive. I know that they just upgraded the product to make it a little bit easier to use, but compared to some of the other platforms, it is not easy to configure it, set it up, and get it running. However, once you have set it up and got it running, it runs great."
"ManageEngine Endpoint Central’s scalability could be improved."
"Some difficulties with setup for multiple locations."
More Cisco Meraki Systems Manager (MDM+EMM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More ManageEngine Endpoint Central Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Meraki Systems Manager (MDM+EMM) is ranked 6th in Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) with 26 reviews while ManageEngine Endpoint Central is ranked 4th in Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) with 59 reviews. Cisco Meraki Systems Manager (MDM+EMM) is rated 8.4, while ManageEngine Endpoint Central is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Meraki Systems Manager (MDM+EMM) writes "Easy to use and excels in generating reports". 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". Cisco Meraki Systems Manager (MDM+EMM) is most compared with VMware Workspace ONE, Jamf Pro, IBM MaaS360, SOTI MobiControl and Google Cloud Identity, whereas ManageEngine Endpoint Central is most compared with Microsoft Configuration Manager, VMware Workspace ONE, Jamf Pro, ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus and SOTI MobiControl. See our Cisco Meraki Systems Manager (MDM+EMM) vs. ManageEngine Endpoint Central report.
See our list of best Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) 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.