We performed a comparison between Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager and Quest KACE Systems Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Compliance solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It provides security features for unified endpoint management."
"The best part about Ivanti and Matrix 42 is that they are low-code solution builders with drag-and-drop capabilities regarding service management."
"The solution's most valuable features are its patch management functionality and provisioning."
"The key differentiator is that it manages mobile devices and laptops in the same console. Windows and Linux are on the same console. This is the only product that does this. It's really the best in the industry."
"Patching and remediation are the strongest features."
"The most valuable features of the solution are accessing the data through the mobiles and meeting with the compliance for security best practices."
"The most valuable feature of Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager, which my company mainly uses, is patching. Another valuable feature of Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is that it allows you to view the inventory list of the different machines."
"The most valuable feature is the imaging of computers through the SDA... Being able to do that so quickly with the SDA, and to then use the SMA for reinstalling software, has been huge for our productivity."
"The single pane of glass for managing devices is helpful because it allows me to perform updates and control things without having to disturb the doctors or nurses."
"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."
"Using this solution saves us lots of time, especially when it comes to performing updates."
"The scripting is a very valuable feature, as it saves us time on pushing certain things out to the users, such as software and patches."
"Pretty much all of the features are valuable. The inventory is very helpful to be able to keep track of our devices. The deployments make it easy to deploy new software packages or upgrade packages. The help desk is also a great tool for tracking problems and problem tickets."
"This product made the job easy to do without having to go put hands on the machines."
"You don't have to be an advanced user. Rather, in terms of ease of use, this product is right where it needs to be."
"One of the features that Ivanti could improve is patching for non-Windows settings, such as Linux and Ubuntu."
"Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager's support provided to its users by the vendor is one area that needs to improve."
"If I want to integrate the solution with any other solution, pushing the policies from the Ivanti side is a bit tough."
"The product's blocking definition needs improvement."
"An area for improvement in Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is reporting. It's lacking. For example, Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager reports should tell you if the agent is up to date, if the security patch is updated, etc."
"When you open a new mobile, you automatically come onboard the mobile on the Ivanti platform but it needs some improvements."
"The solution needs a complete overhaul or makeover. It gets stuck sometimes because they're focusing on the cloud UEM stuff rather than paying as much attention to that particular piece. The ease of use could be improved. It combines many different functionalities that you would need multiple servers like SCCM. If I wanted to train people, I’d move to a higher level from an Apache architect. There are five or six different products. So, training functional staff to use the product can be challenging because it can sometimes be cumbersome. Reporting is challenging. We use Avanti extraction to report off an endpoint. We don't use the reporting because of the need for more functionality, granularity, or customization."
"The labeling process should be more streamlined. It should be easier to do. It gets confusing at times."
"It took a little bit of time to figure out how to use the KACE Service Desk. I like the way that I'm able to customize it. But when it comes to how our techs are able to use it, it's not as functional as our current solution, which is BMC FootPrints Service Desk."
"There isn't a lot they need to improve with the solution itself at this point. It is pretty close to providing a single pane of glass for everything that we need for endpoint management specifically on all devices. There is very little that it doesn't provide for us, and for those, we have to go to other methods. There are some of the patching solutions that it doesn't take care of for us. So, we have to do those manually on the devices, and that's really the biggest thing. It doesn't do patching really well for non-Microsoft applications. The major application updates, particularly Windows updates, don't function nearly as well, but, for the vast majority of things, it does just fine. If they could improve in this aspect, that'd be great, but I don't know if they're going to be able to do that."
"I have complaints about smart label adaptation and because of this, I recommend a 24 to 48 hour bake-in period."
"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."
"The problem is that it's harder to directly emulate a lot of the stuff that the group policies do, using the KACE solution. With regular group policies, you just specify the various settings you want to change on the workstations, and then you specify the workstations and—while it's kind of an ugly mess—it does it. Whereas on KACE, you really have to know what you're doing with scripting to effectively script those exact same changes."
"I would like them to implement VBScript language in KACE Systems Management. Currently, we can only use PowerShell."
More Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Quest KACE Systems Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is ranked 6th in Endpoint Compliance with 7 reviews while Quest KACE Systems Management is ranked 5th in Endpoint Compliance with 38 reviews. Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is rated 8.6, while Quest KACE Systems Management is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager writes "A security solution to manage devices with patching and remediation feature". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest KACE Systems Management writes "Easy to use, saves us time, and increases IT productivity". Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is most compared with BigFix, Tanium, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trellix Endpoint Security and CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager, whereas Quest KACE Systems Management is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services and BigFix. See our Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager vs. Quest KACE Systems Management report.
See our list of best Endpoint Compliance vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Compliance 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.
