We performed a comparison between Microsoft Configuration Manager and Microsoft Windows Server Update Services 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."There is a faster time to rollout. If we get a new PC, it can be ready for productivity right away."
"The solution doesn't require any maintenance from our end because it is a cloud-based solution and Microsoft takes care of everything."
"The ability to make collections and deploy to them has been great."
"I like a lot of the reporting capabilities and baseline configurations."
"We're a Microsoft-centric organization, so we are happy with the integration between products."
"This solution captures all the devices in our infrastructure."
"Microsoft Configuration Manager gives different tools in one solution."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to deploy patches to nearly all applications."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to identify which updates are needed on a particular machine."
"The product is quite stable."
"It provides central management interface for deployment."
"PowerShell is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is Server Update's stability."
"The product provides a valuable Single Sign-On (SSO) integration feature within our IES environment, particularly with the IT directory and server systems."
"The noteworthy aspect is the system's capability to handle an extensive range of services and workloads, with the potential for almost unlimited scalability."
"Downloads critical reports separately."
"It is a bit of an old and outdated product."
"There is no asset management package included."
"It needs to be able to load faster during deployment."
"As far as load balancing across, they don't have that support yet, so that you can actually build multiple primaries and have it load balance across. They don't have any of that functionality yet. That would be a nice feature, to scale that way."
"Based on my experience with SCCM 2016, the main, big issue is not having a good user-friendly environment. It needs much better GUI."
"SCCM should strive to enhance the accuracy of its reporting functions in order to avoid any issues with incorrect or inaccurate data."
"They need to improve the support for the Mac operating system."
"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."
"The database could be improved. In large environments, for example, we often get problems with reporting."
"In the next release, I would like them to provide better connectivity. They must improve the connectivity between the WSS with Microsoft or the client."
"The platform’s dashboard and reporting features need enhancement."
"It would be good if it could deploy third-party patches or applications."
"The ability to have more fine control within this solution is very important. It is not available for the solution in its current state."
"The product must integrate with third-party applications."
"We have some problems when we update the servers."
"Setup is complex."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 1st in Patch Management with 78 reviews while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is ranked 3rd in Patch Management with 38 reviews. Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Seamless system updates, useful integration, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services writes "Lets us manage all our organization's updates from a single management console". Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, Microsoft Intune, BigFix and Tanium, whereas Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is most compared with BigFix, ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Quest KACE Systems Management, Ivanti Neurons Patch for Intune and GFI LanGuard. See our Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Microsoft Windows Server Update Services 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.
