We performed a comparison between ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus 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 are patch management and mobile device management."
"ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus covers almost all my end devices, and I can easily look over my device's hardware status."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is centralized management."
"You can create remote sessions for client systems."
"The solution's technical support is top-notch. Whenever I have a question, they get back to me immediately, which is probably one of the best features of the solution's technical support."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"The fetch repository is a good feature."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"Asset management is most valuable. It is essential for all customers. The other features are also useful, but asset management is most important."
"The scripting part increases IT productivity because of the specialized software in our environments for students' courses. You need to use software which is not programmed by developers. A lot of software for building houses or other things is developed by normal guys, who do not have much skill in programming. When you need to install this type of software, it is very difficult. You have to install registry keys, etc. For that, it is very good to use the scripting part of this solution. So, you can automate this part as well."
"Patching is definitely the most valuable feature. It gives us good, centralized software, which comes in very handy since we are doing 400 servers at a time. It enables us to manage all the servers, and to deal with the application team regarding reboots and scheduling."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to monitor updates—the software versions—on machines so that we can keep everything compliant."
"My company had bought some new machines. We used the tool to do some basic settings to ship every machine the same way and undertake the Windows deployment. We did the scripted installation. The tool helped us deploy custom software for specific departments. We also did Windows updates with the product."
"The big pros of Quest KACE Systems Management are its simple interface, and simple, direct management. It's very easy to maintain and manage the device, and it's easy to get it up and running. You can have it up and running in an hour..."
"This solution makes it easy to control assets and upgrade all types of software."
"We have our KACE agent deployed on all of our workstations and servers, and it provides us with reports on the hardware and software inventory for those."
"The cloud version should have option to add all the endpoints using the agent. Not only for Windows, but also the Linux version. There are some versions which are not compatible with SaaS Manager. So some customers do not want to use the latest version of Linux latest version of CentOS. Actually, CentOS is not available. But some are using and patch manager is compatible for some versions only, not older older versions. So there are some pros and cons that are referred to patch management."
"The only area for improvement in ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, which I noticed, is the reporting."
"The agent can be a bit more intelligent."
"The solution's initial setup is not straightforward, and we have to customize it with our relevant features."
"The solution should have a customer label where we can label those servers or include those servers for specific customers."
"The tool's support needs improvement."
"The user interface of ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus needs to be made more user-friendly, simplified, and less complicated."
"ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus needs to improve speed."
"The KACE Go Mobile App crashes a lot, and it always has. I would love to see that get fixed because it's very convenient when it does work properly, but most of the time it does not."
"We'd love to see support for larger dependencies in the scripting feature."
"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."
"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 labeling process should be more streamlined. It should be easier to do. It gets confusing at times."
"I would like for there to be improvement when it comes to Microsoft and Windows updates. It has the ability to do it but the control of it is not there like I have in the Windows Server Update Services. The way KACE does it is still very granular. You don't really see the process like it is in the Windows Server Update Services. I think that would be one of the biggest things that I would like to see KACE really put some work into and really make that a big enhancement."
"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."
"It is a little bit difficult to use the license compliances because you need to decide when you are using the software catalog if you are using it with their license compliance or the normal software part. Under the inventory, you can use software as a menu link or software catalog. Most of my specialist software is not in the software catalog. When I try to import them, in my license compliances overview, there are cryptic names for this software that I have to import. That is not very good for the reports that I use. When I take them to my bosses, they see cryptic names of software that they don't understand. It would be much better for me if I could use software and the software catalog as well for the license compliances."
More ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Quest KACE Systems Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is ranked 7th in Patch Management with 12 reviews while Quest KACE Systems Management is ranked 6th in Patch Management with 38 reviews. ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is rated 8.4, while Quest KACE Systems Management is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus writes "Good scalability and a responsive tech support team ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest KACE Systems Management writes "Easy to use, saves us time, and increases IT productivity". ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus is most compared with Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, BigFix, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, Microsoft Configuration Manager and ManageEngine Patch Connect Plus, whereas Quest KACE Systems Management is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, BigFix and NinjaOne. See our ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus 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.
