We've looked at Microsoft SCCM, among others. At the end of the day, we looked for something fit for a really small company. We looked for something that can be simple, easy to deploy, and that was one of the reasons we chose BigFix. 

The main drive around BigFix was the fact that you don't need a lot of people to run it. That was one of the reasons we chose BigFix because it was small, or you can easily implement it on a very big scale, and one person can actually manage a lot of customers remotely. That was the reason we picked it. It was the only one that actually met those criteria at that point in time. 

I evaluated Microsoft Engine before choosing this option. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

The main reason why we chose BigFix is because at the time we were looking for a single solution for multiple OS, and SCCM at the time couldn't handle a Windows, Linux, and AIX coverage as BigFix does. I haven't directly managed SCCM myself, but I do feel that BigFix is a much simpler set up, simpler configuration. It's better accepted by our marketing solutions, to get into some of the restricted VLANs, we have a much easier time connecting to restricted LANs than they do. BigFix has better reporting, they're just better integration. The one part where I think SCCM is better is in the remote control. The BigFix solution remote control is a little dated. 

It was directly purchased by the client, and that's why we didn't look for or evaluate a different product. It was also better than most of the tools.

Other systems like Microsoft SCCM has been considered. The systems is too complex and require too many resources compared with BigFix. The BigFix server with the SQL server included could be running and on a singel portable workstation and mange the patch-management of ogf thousands of endpoint. How many SCCM do you need to do that? With Bigfix you can manage a small office with 10 clients as well as enterprise evirement with 250 000 endpoint with only one BigFix-server. 

BigFix is very easy to use. I have also used SCCM, but there were issues with the machine not restarting. There were many problems produced in the environment and in the agent. In BigFix, I haven't seen any issues with the agent. It works smoothly.

It's better than SCCM, it's more flexible. 

We also considered Red Hat and Microsoft. We chose BigFix because we saw more fidelity in reporting, more fidelity in accuracy, and more fidelity in security. 

It's a night and day difference between BigFix and SCCM. Anyone who's used SCCM before knows that BigFix provides a far better product in scalability, reporting, and the accuracy of patching.

When choosing a vendor we think that knowledge of our market place is key. The Walt Disney Company is unique in the environment so we need someone who understands that we work in different ways than a lot of other companies. This also applies with regard to product scalability. We need growth, I don't need to be working with one product in a silo.

When we're selecting a solution, we want a vendor that we can trust, that is on top of it, on point, and thorough.

SCCM is not particularly effective as a cross-platform solution, so that alone makes it less of a contender. Also, BigFix is a lot more flexible, in terms of the types of content you can deploy, the types of reporting you can do, and the types of customizations you can do. We used to do a lot with the integration of the data from BigFix into many other systems, and so the customization is critical and SCCM doesn't offer anything like that.

We also evaluated Microsoft. BigFix was more accurate in the reporting, the patching, and overall functionality.

BigFix was on our short list before they were IBM. We decided against them because they were a small company, even though their solution was better than some of their competitors. Management knew it was too much of a risk to go with BigFix. When they finally became IBM, again, it was a no-brainer because they were on the top of our list of vendors satisfying the feature requirements and now they had the backing of IBM, so it made sense.

We looked at Alteryx. We looked at Microsoft SCCM. SCCM was a big competitor.

I don’t have that many criteria when selecting a vendor.

For myself as a manager who makes business decisions like selecting a vendor, there needs to be a level of trust and a level of partnership where I can go back to this vendor and actually get support and help if we need it, when we need it. Interconnect has been a great resource for that. So there's got to be that trust level there, absolutely.

I will never push a product I don't believe in. So I have to see that it works. I would argue the same is the case for anyone above me in our business or enterprise. We don't want to work with vendors whose products are half-baked. They have got to work.

So we ended up with IBM because we are partnered with GameStop and they were already using the product and saw that it worked. So we didn't formulate a shortlist off the bat. We said let's try GameStop's product and see how well that works for us, and then if it's not working we will go out and make a shortlist. So we didn't have to do that, fortunately.

We also looked at Altiris but BigFix came in because of its unique capabilities. It was Mac and PC compliant and worked with our endpoints. At the time, the price was right for us. There was local support and we had a very personal relationship with BigFix.

SCCM will do most of the Mac stuff I want but doesn't give you the highly targeted capabilities I have in deploying anything I want to endpoints in any configuration that I choose.

We were looking for something that could run Mac and Windows. At the time SCCM didn't do anything with the backend side. We tried to set SCCM up but it seems to be more complicated than it needs to be. BigFix has one central database and is easier. 

We evaluated SCCM. This was already in-house, but not desirable by the Windows team. It also did not support the non-Windows platform (at least not to the extent that BigFix does).

If you compare BigFix with SCCM, both have their own specialty tools. In some cases, I prefer BigFix and in others I prefer SCCM. If you're talking about patching, I'd go with BigFix but if it's connected to image management, then I'd go with SCCM.

No other products evaluated.

We also looked at Microsoft SCCM. We chose BigFix because it's more inclusive, it's centered towards Microsoft and Windows. There's a lot more content and things like that so, it's much more in-depth and widespread than SCCM.

We looked really heavily at LANDesk; they offer a similar product. We ultimately ended up going with BigFix, because of its pricing. Being a subsidiary, we were able to jump on our parent company's license and get a volume license for the enterprise, versus having to going out and get our own solution.

There are so many things that I look at before selecting a vendor. The biggest ones are just honesty and a proven concept. We don't like to spend a lot of time sitting around the table, talking about what it can do, rather I want to see it, do it. So, those hands-on demos are a live proof of concept in our environment and that is what we always try to strive for.

Price and support were the most important factors we considered. I wasn't actually involved in this setup so I don't know which other professional endpoint security companies were on the shortlist.

I wasn't part of the evaluation of other products.

Yes. SCCM, LANDESK, Altiris, and Tanium.

For me, the perception that I can see in the market about stability, quality and all those kinds of things is important when selecting a vendor. Cost is definitely also a criteria.

SCCM was an option at one point, but we zeroed in on BigFix due to the customization possible.

I was not the decision-maker here.