We performed a comparison between GFI LanGuard and Quest KACE Systems Management 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."
"It is helpful to patch and scan vulnerabilities."
"The most useful features of GFI LanGuard are vulnerability assessment and patching solutions."
"The most valuable feature is that I am able to patch third-party solutions."
"The initial setup was easy."
"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."
"I like that the solution can block users from unnecessarily putting devices on the network."
"The most valuable feature of GFI LanGuard is its email spam feature."
"KACE automatically tracks this information and saves it for me, allowing me to call it up on the dashboard. For example, if I need to find Juliano's computer in the system, I don't need to search through endless spreadsheets. I just search for "Juliano" in KACE. KACE also lists other details like the last login user."
"It is excellent in terms of updating and configuring everything the way we need. For anything more complex, we do professional service engagements, and they're exceptional. For anything less complex, we just need to ask questions. Their support division is extremely good too."
"There is one place for a lot of different things. If somebody has a problem with their computer, they will put in a ticket. From there, we will know who it is and the assets assigned to them, because there is one place to go look for what we are talking about and with whom we are talking. Just having one place for everything is really convenient. For example, we are able to deploy software to hundreds of computers. We don't need to go to each individual device."
"The most valuable feature of KACE is the mass package deployment. There are a lot of endpoint management solutions in the market. The way KACE responds is with the installation management feature, which is done in a very intelligent way, as well as scripting. It's wow. It's really wow. On top of that, there is a mass undeployment feature as well."
"Using this solution saves us lots of time, especially when it comes to performing updates."
"The Systems Deployment Appliance is magical when it comes to automating deployment... Not only can we have multiple images, specific to end-users' uses, but we have a plethora of post-installation tasks to install or configure the system, tasks that can be re-used for each system. You just have one basic base image, and then you use the post-install tasks to customize everything else. It is amazing."
"This solution makes it easy to control assets and upgrade all types of software."
"This product made the job easy to do without having to go put hands on the machines."
"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."
"The version we are using only allows one person to use it at a time and does not allow multi-users."
"GFI LanGuard has some technical limitations with machines."
"When you want to uninstall software from an endpoint, sometimes it becomes very problematic."
"GFI LanGuard can improve by adding asset tracking."
"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."
"This solution is limited to the local area network only and cannot manage remote devices."
"The only hiccups we had were some power issues, where the box was a little under-powered early on."
"Scalability is my primary concern right now."
"KACE implemented the possibility of reducing the network speed of the KACE agent. You can set it so that it takes whatever network speed you want or you can set it to 5 Mb, to save network speed. You set it for all the computers, but it would be preferable to separate between VPN connections in our home office and the local area. It would be great to be able to set separate speeds for different VLANs."
"The customization of the interface needs improvement for things like end user tickets. While the functionality is good, some of that UI stuff does need improvement."
"Imaging becomes a problem when you start to try to go beyond doing more than thirty or forty machines at a time. We initially tried to do that virtually and it just, it wouldn't work."
"When we have to do a rebuild on these machines, although it is rare, I would like to be able to do more than 10 at a time. With the current limit, it slows me down because I have to set up 10, then the next 10, and so forth."
"Sometimes the information is not as real time as it's supposed to be."
"We'd love to see support for larger dependencies in the scripting feature."
More Quest KACE Systems Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
GFI LanGuard is ranked 9th in Patch Management with 10 reviews while Quest KACE Systems Management is ranked 6th in Patch Management with 38 reviews. GFI LanGuard is rated 8.0, while Quest KACE Systems Management is rated 8.8. 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 Quest KACE Systems Management writes "Easy to use, saves us time, and increases IT productivity". GFI LanGuard is most compared with ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager and BigFix, whereas Quest KACE Systems Management is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, BigFix and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform. See our GFI LanGuard vs. Quest KACE Systems Management 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.