We performed a comparison between GFI LanGuard and Microsoft Configuration Manager 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 most valuable features in GFI LanGuard are patch management and vulnerability assessment."
"The most valuable feature of GFI LanGuard is its email spam feature."
"The most valuable features of GFI LanGuard are the vulnerability assessment, it provides us with substantial insight into what applications are running on the endpoint systems and what vulnerabilities are there in the running applications. The second would be the assets tracking. I'm able to see in the network whether my endpoint server is operating and if all the other IT equipment is running in the environment. Additionally, GFI LanGuard is not heavy on system resources. It gives a competitive advantage over others."
"The most valuable feature is that I am able to patch third-party solutions."
"This product is a great solution at a great price as long as it is only going to be used for a local area network."
"It is helpful to patch and scan vulnerabilities."
"The solution is easy to use and integrates well with other operating systems."
"I like that the solution can block users from unnecessarily putting devices on the network."
"The most valuable features are application deployment and task-sequenced imaging."
"I like the data collection."
"The initial setup is straightforward and not too complicated."
"It has the ability to perform mass distribution."
"The most valuable features are Remote Connect, SUP, Cloud functionality, Report, Query, and third-party patching."
"Endpoint Manager is valuable to our organization because it allows us to connect to our enterprise from remote locations securely. The most useful feature is its robustness and scalability. It is highly scalable and flexible, allowing us to use it in various environments. Additionally, we can specialize the policies related to each device group. This ensures that each group has access to the applications they need for their work and non-work hours."
"Valuable features include configurations enforcement, compliance data gathering, and deployment of a standardized OS."
"This solution helps us by automating the patching of our system."
"GFI LanGuard has some technical limitations with machines."
"The only drawback with GFI LanGuard is that you cannot directly integrate it from the Outlook email; instead, you have to first log in to the site to make changes."
"If GFI LanGuard had a cloud version it would be better for people that are working from home."
"GFI LanGuard can improve by adding more modules, such as asset control or asset inventory."
"The documentation on how to use this solution in a Linux environment is not clear, which is something that should be improved because it is complicated."
"GFI LanGuard can improve by adding asset tracking."
"The version we are using only allows one person to use it at a time and does not allow multi-users."
"GFI LanGuard could improve the rollback feature. If we have installed the wrong we have had some issues with the rollback function. Additionally, more input from GFI LanGuard for the custom software push install."
"The setup was complex and I faced a lot of problems initially because I was new to the solution."
"The tool's deployment is complex and depends on the architecture you want to implement."
"SCCM does not scale well, which is one of the reasons we are not going to continue to use it."
"On some hardware, we'd like an easier way to get peripherals attached."
"The analysis is something that can be integrated. Their report analysis can be improved a little bit due to the fact that most of the time complaints policies are saved by the admins. It's something that we need to look into and search for."
"The product needs to improve scalability."
"It would be of benefit if Configuration Manager could be connected/integrated with multiple Microsoft Intune subscriptions rather than just one (the current limit)."
"Regarding this, I'd like to mention the agent situation. When the agent on an end-user device is not functioning correctly, it can be quite problematic. It would be highly beneficial if there were a self-healing mechanism in place. Essentially, if the agent becomes corrupted or encounters issues, it should be able to rectify itself autonomously. This is particularly critical because, in order to utilize a tool like MECM (assuming you're referring to Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager), we need to deploy agents, known as AsMs, on all the devices we use, such as Windows 10 or Windows Server. Sometimes, when we deploy configurations or updates, they don't apply properly due to agent issues. This issue has been present since we began using MECM around 23 years ago. Unfortunately, there is currently no built-in mechanism for the agent to detect its own problems and initiate self-repair. Microsoft doesn’t have any feature to scan vulnerabilities and hence, they could include those."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
GFI LanGuard is ranked 9th in Patch Management with 10 reviews while Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 1st in Patch Management with 78 reviews. GFI LanGuard is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of GFI LanGuard writes "A scalable, competitively priced solution with a good ROI and easy setup process ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Seamless system updates, useful integration, and reliable". GFI LanGuard is most compared with ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager, BigFix and Automox, whereas Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, Microsoft Intune, BigFix and Tanium. See our GFI LanGuard vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager 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.