We performed a comparison between Microsoft Configuration Manager and NetCrunch based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Microsoft, ServiceNow and others in Server Monitoring."The technical support is good."
"It is a very well-rounded product. It is a complete package with all the features using which we are able to manage our PCs very efficiently."
"There have to be made some improvement in WSUS and control in other non-Microsoft products updates."
"I have found the solution to be scalable. We have around 50,000 users using the solution."
"The solution doesn't require any maintenance from our end because it is a cloud-based solution and Microsoft takes care of everything."
"I like the data collection."
"Patching is the main feature because SCCM is made to control the entire environment without manually interpreting. So it is good to use for patching."
"The solution has a very good set of features."
"Reporting on NetCrunch is pretty good. It's very similar to SolarWinds. It's just a different interface. The majority of everything there was beneficial."
"The product needs to improve scalability."
"There is a reboot issue with the patching. Sometimes, if patching runs into any issue whatsoever, it doesn't reboot but it doesn't tell you it errored out. It just sits there and we don't find out until the next day whether it patched or not. That was a big issue for us. We're working through that. They added some stuff in there now where you can actually tell reboot is pending. But we still need some kind of notification that if something fails or is pending, we know. We shouldn't have to go in and look. They don't have anything for that right now."
"The database should be made to be more stable and robust, but not so much the configuration."
"The assets have reached their end-of-life, and patching them is a complex and laborious task. It would be highly advantageous if there were an integrated solution that provided distinct options for each end-of-life asset, streamlining the process and facilitating comprehension."
"The solution is on-premises. The cloud version of the product, if a person needs to be on the cloud, would be InTune, which already exists as an option. SCCM doesn't need to offer cloud features for this reason."
"Their compliance reporting is not accurate, and they admitted it on the phone when we had a call with them. We were trying to understand why their numbers didn't match on our compliance reports. It is not accurate and you cannot depend on the compliance reports. The numbers just don't match, and we can't figure out why. We called Microsoft and they said, "Yeah, that's a known issue." But there is no word that they're working on it."
"There's no way to say, "I want this maintenance window to be on the second Tuesday of the month." It's strict. This window is this and that's it. You can't fluctuate."
"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."
"I didn't care for the role-based, permission-based options, which were not the best."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 2nd in Server Monitoring with 78 reviews while NetCrunch is ranked 25th in Server Monitoring. Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2, while NetCrunch 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 NetCrunch writes "A network monitoring platform with a useful reporting feature, but permission-based options could be better". Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, Microsoft Intune, BigFix and Tanium, whereas NetCrunch is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor and Fortinet FortiSIEM.
See our list of best Server Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Server Monitoring 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.
