ManageEngine Endpoint Central Reviews

We are using ManageEngine Endpoint Central for patch and asset management.

The most valuable feature of ManageEngine Endpoint Central is the central management console. Additionally, inventory tracking is helpful for knowing where our assets are.

We are looking for a complete solution for patch management with central management and the cloud which ManageEngine Endpoint Central does not provide.

I have been using ManageEngine Endpoint Central for approximately five years.

We have not had many issues with the stability.

Our approximately 15 IT staff that are using ManageEngine Endpoint Central in my company.

The application support is effective. We can communicate with the agents by email, telephone, or online chat.

I rate the support of ManageEngine Endpoint Central an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of ManageEngine Endpoint Central is simple. However, it is client-based, you have to identify the endpoint that needs to have the installation.

There is a freeware version of the solution available as long as you do not breach the number of licenses and users that are dictated.

The price of the solution is reasonable.

I would recommend people use the solution. It's designed to be user-friendly and easy to set up, and one of its key strengths is that many IT professionals are choosing it because it has a free version.

I rate ManageEngine Endpoint Central an eight out of ten.

We have two main use cases of Desktop Central. The first is patching, because we want to keep our systems secure. We install Microsoft security updates using ManageEngine Desktop Central every month. The second case is to deploy applications. We want to install applications to the machines from a central location. Also, we want to give access to users so they can install whatever applications they need using the self-service portal option. When there is a common application used by many users, we publish it to the self-service portal so users can install it themselves instead of contacting local IT. Those are our two main use cases of ManageEngine, but we also use it for other tasks, such as remote connection. Our local IT uses two products: ManageEngine Desktop Central and TeamViewer. We use both to connect to the remote machines. 

We have the on-premise version, but we are looking to move forward to the cloud version once they start supporting data migration—at the moment, they don't support it. 

One of the benefits of Desktop Central is it made the provisioning process simpler because now we have a provisioning package. We have around 1,500 laptops at the moment and all these PCs were provisioned by a provisioning package. In the provisioning package, we have integrated every aspect of renaming, deploying applications, patching, etc., so we simply execute the provisioning package and as soon as it's executed, it will install the management agent. Once the agent is installed, it will take care of all the tasks, so we don't have to sit in front of the computer to prepare the machine. This really helps us to provision the PC quickly with our agent. 

Now, we are going to do a PC refresh. It's a big project for next year. We are going to replace all of our PCs—1,500 PCs—with a new one, for all the users, so we have big requirements for ManageEngine. ManageEngine does a lot of scripting work in the backend—including renaming the computer according to our conventions, distributing applications, patching—so when we prepare the machine, we want everything to be installed and ready to give to the user. We don't want to wait or take more time, so we've now combined ManageEngine with Microsoft's Autopilot and Intune to provision the PCs. PC provisioning is made easier with ManageEngine. 

Another benefit is we have the option to pilot updates with some machines before distributing them to production, and this can be completely automated. We don't have to create said task every time for testing and deployment, so once we scope it, it relieves the time we spend each month deploying patches. It regularly runs in our schedule with the reboot options. We give reboot notifications in a user-friendly manner to employees, with the option to postpone the reboot. This relieves the time that we spend with end users since it's user-friendly. 

One of the most valuable features is patching. They support third-party patching as well, so we don't have to use another product. They support both Microsoft and third-party updates, and this is one of the main functionalities that we use regularly. 

The software deployment feature is also valuable because, once in a while, we need to distribute applications, such as VCO, Office applications, etc. For example, when we prepare a PC for users. We use ManageEngine to perform lots of tasks. 

We also have the option to deploy scripts via ManageEngine. We use some scripts that are to be deployed during the machines' provisioning, to make sure our machines are renamed properly according to the naming conventions we want. For example, for the France region, we want FRP, France Paris, and then the serial number. We want to deploy some script that renames the PC after the machine is provisioned, and we also want to deploy background images, logon screen, logout screen, etc. So we deploy all these policies using ManageEngine.

ManageEngine could be improved by giving customers an option to perform certain actions proactively. Since I was a consultant, I worked on different products and some had advantages over ManageEngine. For example, proactive remediation—you want to proactively check something on the computers and run the script. In ManageEngine, you have the option to run the script, but Intune has the option to do so proactively. ManageEngine doesn't have this. You should have the option to act proactively, not just going ahead and fixing it once it's done. Proactive remediation should be a feature. 

Another thing is, with PC provisioning, they have to make it in a modern way. They have deployment, but it's a very outdated process right now. It's a modern workplace, so you have to provision a PC live, on the go—it's not that you create images and then distribute the image to the machines. Many customers are not using this and, in fact, we are not using it. We use a modern way of PC provisioning. So they have to concentrate on that more. 

There are small glitches, but it's not going to stop you from using the product. For example, when you open the configuration, you may not see the details, but if you refresh the page, you will see them. There are small glitches here and there that we can see. 

I began using this solution about a year ago. In the past, I implemented this solution for different customers, but now I am an end user.

This solution is very stable. It depends on the size of the company, though. For us, it's very stable because we don't have many machines. The overall count is 1,800 to 1,900 machines—our license is for 2,050, but we've currently only utilized 1,900. So our infrastructure is medium-sized, I would say. If you go for 10,000, 20,000, you might have some lagging in the performance, but I'm not sure. 

It doesn't really require much maintenance. You just keep it as you want and regularly do a cleanup of old applications—when you delete, you have a new version of the package, so you might want to clean up the old packages—and that's it. You have automatic cleanup functionalities in the product itself. For example, if you download an update for this month and, after three months, none of the machines require this patch anymore, it automatically cleans up. You have some settings to enable so that you don't have to manually work on the cleanup. 

This solution is very easy to scale. We are trying to create lots of virtual machines in Azure Virtual Desktop, so we might increase our machines by another 100 or 200. 

ManageEngine's support is one of the best, I would say. We have chat support, so I can immediately ping someone in support, from my end product console, and get assistance very quickly. If I have a question, I can ask them directly; if I have technical questions, I can ask them, and they will provide an answer right away. If I write an email, it will take three to four hours. Since I was a support engineer before, I don't normally raise questions, but when I do, I normally get quick replies. Because it's a one-to-one chat, you get immediate responses from the chat window. 

In the past, when I first joined this company, we were using WSUS to patch all of our machines, but we didn't have any control over what patches were installed. We didn't have a proper reporting aspect in WSUS—we could have, but it's very complicated. We'd have to connect the information using SQL Server and pull the information, and that's lots of querying. But with ManageEngine, it's explicit. You go and collect the reports as you want, such as the number of patches installed on a machine or how many machines got a particular update. We even have the option to uninstall patches once they're installed, so we can go back to the previous patch version of the application. 

Another drawback with WSUS is that you don't have the option to scale a reboot. With ManageEngine, we can give reboot notifications in a user-friendly manner to employees, with the option to postpone, and after a certain number of days, you can reboot forcefully. This relieves the time that we spend with end users, who now get a pop-up. You don't have many options with WSUS, but with ManageEngine, you do. 

The deployment process is very easy. It's a combined product, so when you install the Desktop Central EXE, you install the database on the same machine, as well as the web server components like Apache Tomcat and Observer. Basically, when you install the EXE, you just click "next," "next," "next," and then it's done. It's not a big deployment. In terms of planning, you might need a little bit of time, but that's it. It's a half-day or one-day task, not like SCCM where you have to spend a lot of effort and there are lots of technical guides, technical architectural documents, etc. So it's very user-friendly in terms of deployment, I would say. 

The number of people involved in deployment depends on the size of the company. As I was a consultant before, I worked with two people, sometimes with one to six people. So it depends on the company. For example, in our company, we have only two people who manage the platform. To be honest, I cannot say that only one person can install this solution. 

For us, the deployment took two to three days, but it's not a continuous three days. We installed the server component and we installed the distribution server component after two days. So on the whole, we would've spent two to three days, maximum. 

We implemented through an in-house team. 

The pricing is very low, compared to other products. Compared to Intune or SCCM, it's much less. I can say it's a good product for less of a price. 

Intune doesn't really have a price, at the moment, because they integrated Intune with another license for Microsoft. If you purchase M365, you get the license. They've made everything a combo now, so obviously any company will go for M365, which includes everything. That's what our company has, and we don't pay anything extra for it. If you split the money, it would be much less than Desktop Central, so you can't technically compare the two. 

ManageEngine's licensing is not as good. They add new features and they ask for money. For example, they introduced Browser Security, which is an extra add-on. Compared to Intune, you just buy the Intune product and that's it, you have everything in place—browser security, endpoint management, etc. Everything's included with the Intune license, which isn't the case with ManageEngine. That's something they really need to take care of. 

We also use Intune, which offers many functionalities since it's integrated with Office 365. In terms of the experience, it's very light, but since ManageEngine is a completely different product, you have to integrate a lot of things. For example, installing the ManageEngine agent to all the machines if you want to onboard them. In comparison, with Intune, normally when you prepare the machine, it's automatically included, so onboarding is easy. 

Also, since Intune is a cloud service, you don't need to manage any infrastructure and you don't need a server to host the solution. With Desktop Central, you need a server, and that server should be managed by someone else as well, like a GDC team, a server team. 

Both solutions have advantages and disadvantages. For example, creating packages in ManageEngine is easier than Intune. In Intune, you have to create a package and convert it to a package format supported by Intune. In ManageEngine, you can create EXE or MSI—both are supported—and you just upload and create the package. 

ManageEngine Desktop Central is a product that's worth the money. It's easy to install and quicker in action. If you start installing the product today, in a small environment, you will be able to deploy the application in two hours. 

I rate ManageEngine a seven out of ten. They have a lot of improvements to make. 

I used it about six months ago. We implemented it in the last company I worked with. We were using it for patching, rolling out images, and other similar things.

We were using the most recent version.

I like being able to image over the network. That's a nice feature that it has. Patch management is pretty decent on it as well.

The only problem with it is that the setup isn't very intuitive. I know that they just upgraded the product to make it a little bit easier to use, but compared to some of the other platforms, it is not easy to configure it, set it up, and get it running. However, once you have set it up and got it running, it runs great.

Once it was set up and running, there were no issues with it. It seems to run fairly well.

It is scalable. I was the admin for this system, and we probably had over a thousand end-users. I was the only one who knew how to use it at the time.

Their tech support was pretty good. For any issues we had, they'd come in and work with us and get them resolved pretty quickly.

Its setup isn't very intuitive.

We had perpetual licenses. The cost was around 36,000, and then you'd have the yearly maintenance fee of 2,000 or 3,000.

They have a service where they come in and configure it or do the setup for you for a price. I don't remember the price, but it was pretty reasonable. If you're not familiar with the platform, that might be a good thing to go with, especially if you don't want to go in and do the ifs and buts trying to set it up. It would be a lot easier if you had them come and set it up for you. With all the alerting and everything else that you have to set up with it, it takes a minute to get it up and running and have everything the way you wanted.

I'd give it an eight out of 10. I was really happy with it.

My primary use case is for operating system imaging and deployment. We also use it for software deployment, automatic software updates, and computer remote assistance.

Desktop Central allows us to manage everything related to computing equipment including mobile devices and software licenses in a centralized place.

All of Desktop Central's features are valuable, especially its simplicity.

The team should work on improving the stability, particularly with massive patches deployment, clients are not 100% getting patches and the information provided by the system does not help; more detailed report would be very useful. ManageEngine should provide a periodic health checks for licensed customers; can be a sharing for best practices, tips or recommendation of critical patches or features the customer may have missed.

I've been using Desktop Central for two years.

This solution is scalable.

Excellent technical support, the team is very supportive and responsive to all issues.

Positive

I previously used Microsoft SCCM, but it was difficult to deploy, while Desktop Central is more flexible and user-friendly.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I implemented it by myself, which took two days.

We pay 40,000 per year for Desktop Central, ready to manage any size of IT computing environment without having to pay additional fees.

Desktop Central is easy to deploy, manage, and integrate with other ManageEngine products. I would recommend it to anyone managing a computing environment - it's a complete product for all sizes of enterprise, and it's ready to be deployed straight out of the box. I would score it as nine out of ten.

I use only the asset-management part. 

The asset management is a good feature. It's not the best. However, it's a good feature to use.

It is stable and reliable. 

We can scale the product.

The OS deployment could be better.

Technical support from our local partner is not the greatest.

I'm still exploring the solution. There is yet more to uncover.

Typically, if anything was missing, I would put in a feature request. However, I have not done that yet.

I only started using the solution a few months ago.

It is a very stable solution. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze.

It is very easy to expand. You just need to add extra licenses that are required, along with the computer resources. If I add enough computer resources along with the licenses, it's very easy to scale.

We have around 2,000 endpoints on the solution.

How ManageEngine works is they have partner support. In my region, they have only one partner. If my understanding is right, they only have one partner for the full GCC, and the partner I'm with is not great. If you ask me to rate them, it'll be a zero.

The service from the OEM itself, ManageEngine itself, is good. It's just the partner that is not helpful.

I've also worked with VMware. 

We use the asset management from LANDesk Ivanti, although we can't compare all the features as we use it for other processes. 

We had assistance with the setup and only require three admins for maintenance tasks. 

I received professional support for the initial setup.

I don't directly deal with pricing. 

We're customers and end-users. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It's still new to me, and I'm still exploring its capabilities. 

We do patch management and are enabling this service portal. Users can interact with IT in order to download and install the applications. We also push out software to various departments. It's mainly used for patch management. We tend to test and monitor patches. 

The patch management policies are great. We can handle patches that are highly critical, and it makes handling patch deployment very simple. 

Customization is very easy. 

The dashboard has been very useful. 

It is stable.

The solution is scalable. 

We'd like more compatibility for Mac in the future. That way, we wouldn't need to use two tools for different computers. 

The support could be faster. 

It was a bit expensive. 

We just finished a POC, and we are onboarding the solution right now.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable and the performance is good. 

It is scalable. 

We have 1,000 or more people using the solution. 

The support isn't as good as it could be. We need it to be better. When we send requests, we find it takes too much time. 

I handle technical support for clients, and I troubleshoot where I can. I tend to go through documentation and resolve what I can. Otherwise, I have to reach out to Microsoft, and there can sometimes be a delay in response. 

The initial setup is easy. It's not overly complex. 

Currently, we are using an identity manager like JumpCloud. We are pushing via JumpCloud. If there is a new user, I have already created the groups, and I can just add them in. It's pretty simple. 

The cost of licensing is paid yearly. 

The price is a bit expensive. However, it's not too bad compared to the market.

There are some extra costs as well. If you go for the standard enterprise plan, not many features are covered. You need to trade up to bigger editions that offer more features. 

I am an implementor and admin. 

We have it on-premises and on the cloud as well.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. 

This company uses the product a lot to do the patch implementation. In terms of the configuration of all machines, they do a lot of remote sections for the end-users.

The patch distribution is so easy. 

The mobile functionality is very easy. 

Remote sections are very good. 

The initial setup is easy.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support has been helpful.

It's quite stable. 

The pricing is good. 

The graphical dashboard is so easy to do analysis from.

I don't have any suggestions to improve the solution at this moment. However, the problem is Desktop Central is a big solution. It is a very powerful solution. It can be overwhelming.

Desktop Central has very good information, however, you can't customize the dashboards. If they had dashboard customization, it would be a very good improvement. When you have a dashboard that shows where, when, and why you had some problem it's quite useful. Customizing it to meet your exact needs would be ideal.

I've been using the solution, more or less, for four years.

It is a stable product. The performance is good. There are no glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

Sometimes we have bugs, however, the support is very, very nice and the support is a very good to us.

With a customer, we have more or less 2,000 desktops, 50 mobiles, and 300 servers.

It is a scalable product.

We do have plans to increase usage in the future. Likely in the next two months, we'll be looking at getting 200 more licenses.

We don't have problems with support. They are very helpful and responsive. 

We also use remote sessions to do support for the final user.

Positive

We also did POCs with HPE and IBM. We also looked into CA, Computer Associates.

Before moving to ManageEngine's Desktop Central and doing the POCs we did not use any different products.

It's an easy implementation. The setup is not overly complex. I haven't had any issues with the process at all. 

It doesn't take long to deploy. The problem is this customer. I spent a lot of time not on the setup. We did a POC and I spent more or less three months on it as this customer compared ManageEngine with three other solutions. ManageEngine Desktop Central was benchmarked in the comparison of the other three products. We proved everything including patch distribution, configuration, machine configuration, OS deployment, and remote sectioning. We proved everything and we did a comparison with two other solutions. That's what took the most amount of time.

We have more or less 20 technicians working with Desktop Central.

In terms of maintenance, the Desktop Central team works with the client to maintain all the machines and keep them up to date in terms of configurations and patches. 

We handled the implementation ourselves. We didn't need outside assistance. 

We have seen an ROI. 

If you do have one company with more 200 computers it's impossible to have all the machines up to date with patches. It's hard to get to every final user's machine. The problem is when you have many sites and solutions and development solutions inside of the company, it gets complex.

If you do one patch optimization without doing a test before the real installation of the patch in all machines, you can run into very big problems inside the company. Sometimes you install one patch and this patch is not compatible with all solutions, for example. If you have to patch for 2,000 machines, you can't say how many people will need which patch, et cetera. This solution solves that problem and removed the hours of work and complexity that you'd have to face if you didn't have it on hand.  

The pricing is very good. It's very reasonable and less than other options. 

We looked into HP, IBM, and CA. We compared them against ManageEngine. ManageEngine ended up being the cheapest.

We are using the last version of the solution.

I'd advise users to try out a POC. If they have a lot of machines in their company and need help with patching, this might be the perfect solution. However, try it on some machines first. See how it goes. It's the easiest way to find a solution that will work for you. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

The solution is used predominantly for our service desk and IT uses it for capturing issues from our users.

The solution has a lot of the features we need and we are looking forward to taking advantage of them after a little bit of training. 

It seems to be pretty straightforward in terms of ease of use. The user interface is good.

We don't have any issues with the pricing. 

The solution is stable.

The product can scale.

The team I've currently got is not using it particularly well, due to the fact that they don't know how to use it particularly well. They've not done any training and so on. There are lots of things that need to be done. Hence, why I was looking to whether it's a good product or not, which I think it is. It's a good enough product, yet in terms of the team, they just don't know what to do. I don't know how good it's going to be. That said, it looks like it's going to be perfect for what we want; it just needs to be matured further.

I am an interim contract head of IT for the Commission, and the company I work with has been using it for about two years. I wanted to see what other potential solutions there might be out there, and also to see how it stacks up against others. I've only been using it for about six months, however, I was looking at the competitors as well.

The stability is good. Once we get going with it, and we get the partners to help us develop it further, it'll be absolutely perfect.

The scalability seems to be okay.

I have no comments in regards to technical support. I've never called them.

I did not previously use a different solution.

I was not around for the initial implementation and therefore cannot speak to how easy or difficult the process was. 

It is my understanding that the company had third-party support to do the implementation.

The cost of the solution is reasonable. 

I have been actively evaluating other solutions. 

We are using a previous version of the solution. It's not the latest version. 

The most important thing, when you're looking at any product, is to make sure you've clearly defined what you're trying to achieve and do, and then go through what it can and can't do for you to make sure you get a good fit. That's the advice I'd give to anyone considering implementing it. 

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I've been pleased with its potential capabilities so far.