We performed a comparison between Kaseya VSA 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."Kaseya VSA's best features are auditing and reporting."
"I like the Live Connect module provided by Kaseya. It is a powerful module. I also like the Agent Procedure module. We work with it most of the time."
"Provides efficient automation."
"VSA installs an agent on every computer that allows users to create a help desk ticket with one click. That's why I chose VSA. Many users never create tickets when they have a problem. Sometimes I won't know about an issue until they run into me and say, "Hey, this has been broken for two months.""
"Patch management was very useful. Backdoor access to the clients was also very useful."
"Kesaya is highly configurable."
"The training that we received was quite good."
"The product's support team is very quick to respond, especially because the tool's technical team operates in the same time zone where I am located."
"The main, clear valuable feature is updating the latest, patches and updates from Windows. This is the main feature we really utilize a lot."
"The most valuable features are Remote Connect, SUP, Cloud functionality, Report, Query, and third-party patching."
"SCCM does everything from A to Z for a Windows operating system."
"Microsoft has done a good job with authentication solutions, such as single sign-on, or open authentication."
"Software deployment and WSUS are most valuable."
"There have to be made some improvement in WSUS and control in other non-Microsoft products updates."
"The product is useful for patch management."
"The scalability to deploy the package."
"The product's user interface is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"It's very difficult to update the third-party software on every device."
"There should be more Mac support. Whenever a new Mac operating system comes out, the support is very limited. It takes them a while to get things up to date. We're seeing more and more people move to Mac from the Windows environment for various reasons, but their support for Mac is very limited. A lot of it might have to do with Mac itself, but there are ways to improve upon that. That would be my biggest thing for improvement."
"The technical support of the solution is an area with shortcomings that needs improvement."
"The main difference would be the addition of audio transfer between the end-user and the remote connectivity software. That is the one critical piece that we are currently lacking."
"Its scripting language kind of sucked. They have their own version of PowerShell inside VSA. if you want to reach out and grab endpoint information, for instance, to know how many end devices have a program installed, you actually have to write a script for that. It wasn't like how it is in CrowdStrike where you can just do a search, and it just happened. In VSA, you have to write your own script to do it. In terms of new features, an integrated MDM for mobile devices would be awesome."
"The audit and KNM tools could improve."
"The way it is laid out can be improved. If it could be a little more intuitive, it might be a little bit easier. Sometimes, it is hard to find features because they're called something weird, or they're in an interesting location that you wouldn't have thought that they'd be in."
"Marketing: Our management doesn't understand that there is a piece of software which helps them automate and manage the entire network, as far as operating systems on computers."
"The main thing is that SCCM has to become an appliance instead of a server. When I say appliance, it has to come preconfigured so that it is drop-shipped into the enterprise and then you activate the feature sets that you want. It should pull down all the latest binaries. Once that is all there, it should have a discovery tool which goes out and discovers the assets within an enterprise. If the server, workstation, and applications are all coming from the same vendor, why not have the vendor do this work for us and automate it as much as it possibly can?"
"Built in PowerShell cmdlets would be a nice feature because managing clients remotely can be a pain without knowing the WMI calls to run."
"The ability to integrate MDM would be great."
"It would be of benefit if Configuration Manager could be connected/integrated with multiple Microsoft Intune subscriptions rather than just one (the current limit)."
"I would like to see an agentless version of the solution."
"The configuration of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager could be improved, it is a bit complicated."
"Some of the capabilities aren't fully developed yet. It's an ongoing work in progress. I think they are making some steps in the right direction as far as managing workstations centrally, like Intune."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaseya VSA is ranked 4th in Patch Management with 29 reviews while Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 1st in Patch Management with 78 reviews. Kaseya VSA is rated 7.6, while Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Kaseya VSA writes "Single portal management, cost-saving, with thorough technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Seamless system updates, useful integration, and reliable". Kaseya VSA is most compared with ConnectWise Automate, NinjaOne, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Datto Remote Monitoring and Management and N-able N-central, whereas Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, Microsoft Intune, BigFix and Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune. See our Kaseya VSA 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.
