We performed a comparison between Microsoft Configuration Manager and Red Hat Satellite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Configuration Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Intune can wipe devices. For example, if a disgruntled employee wants to leak the data on their company phone, Intune can terminate their access and wipe the entire device with a click."
"Stable solution at a good price."
"The biggest benefits of Intune are the ability to push changes and the added security. When we moved forward with Defender, we onboarded all those machines automatically. That helps dramatically. For a while, we were left with machines that weren't protected. We could see where people had done things they shouldn't have done, and Defender saved our skins a few times. It didn't happen a lot, but it happened enough that it made us glad we made that decision."
"It is very easy to use. It has a very easy interface."
"The best feature is that we don't need to worry about downtime. We don't need to worry about the network connections of our office or the virtual private network. Everything is being done through the internet. Using Intune Autopilot, we can configure and deploy everything to the devices."
"It is a stable solution."
"It has helped with compliance. It has helped to ensure that devices comply with the organization's policy. If they are not compliant and secure, they cannot access the resources."
"In terms of technical support, you will get an immediate response."
"Patching is very effective and reporting is very good."
"Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is valuable in keeping our systems updated. We are able to send updates to all the systems. Additionally, the Intune integration is helpful."
"The most valuable features are Remote Connect, SUP, Cloud functionality, Report, Query, and third-party patching."
"Microsoft Configuration Manager gives different tools in one solution."
"I like Mircosoft's technical support. Microsoft has a few updates, like some of the critical KBs. They are published within the interval time, and in case of an escalation on the client missions, we will raise a ticket with the Microsoft team. They will create a hotfix or a critical update. They will chat with us, and that is one thing I like about Microsoft. Whenever any issues occur at my organization, they will help you out soon as possible within the SLA."
"It is a good choice for deployment that performs very well."
"Technical support was helpful and responsive."
"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."
"Patch management is, for sure, most valuable. For license management and patch management, I would rate it a 10 out of 10."
"It cuts down significantly on the administrative time it takes to patch systems in a large environment."
"The 'remote execution' feature further helps manage systems on a consistent basis."
"Satellite gives administrators the ability to target deployments and only send out the updates or provision updates to certain groups."
"The product is convenient to use."
"Technical support has been good."
"You don't need to depend on any third party. It's a complete solution for patch and configuration management when integrated with the existing system."
"It plays a significant role in managing the lifecycle of our systems and ensures that we can effectively control and update the software versions to align with our organization's needs."
"Integrating certain group policies can be challenging and may necessitate using on-premises systems to integrate them with Microsoft Intune."
"Microsoft Intune could enhance its patch management for various devices, ensuring regular updates and tracking of device privileges."
"What would make this product better is adding more security policies and features in the next upgrade."
"The reporting and cost have room for improvement."
"It should be easier to define policies and comply with those policies."
"The reports aren't complete, and it's not easy to build custom reports. For example, Windows Autopilot isn't working well in cases where the computers don't have a good internet connection. Then the option is not good enough."
"Reporting and troubleshooting for the application deployment could be better. It's very difficult to understand."
"I think that there is room for improvement with the reporting. If this is done, it will be a better product."
"The product needs to improve scalability."
"In terms of scalability, I believe there's room for improvement. While SCCM is capable of handling our current needs effectively, scalability could be enhanced to accommodate future growth and larger deployments."
"Some of the capabilities aren't fully developed yet. It's an ongoing work in progress. I think they are making some steps in the right direction as far as managing workstations centrally, like Intune."
"The configuration of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager could be improved, it is a bit complicated."
"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."
"I would like to see more automation."
"The analysis is something that can be integrated. Their report analysis can be improved a little bit due to the fact that most of the time complaints policies are saved by the admins. It's something that we need to look into and search for."
"A lot of experience is needed in terms of troubleshooting, as this is one of the most difficult tasks in MECM. We were seven people in a group and I was the only one that had the patience to do the troubleshooting at times."
"The documentation could be better."
"The product could have more diversity in what it is able to deploy and might do better if it was not dedicated to Red Hat products only."
"They could make it more easy to use and improve the GUI so that it's more intuitive."
"The solution's initial setup is a little bit tricky."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. The licensing is a bit expensive."
"It should basically include a complete slew of system management and monitoring tools such as Nagios. It should be a single pane of glass that gives us a complete solution. It is a good solution, but it is missing a few important things. We're using Capsule for DMVs on other secured zones. Capsule is a part of Satellite to be a proxy of sorts."
"Improving integration could lead to a more unified management experience for multiple operating systems within our data center."
"Automation can always be improved and refined to continue to make it better."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 2nd in Configuration Management with 78 reviews while Red Hat Satellite is ranked 4th in Configuration Management with 22 reviews. Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Satellite is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Seamless system updates, useful integration, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Satellite writes "A good product for managing patches and updates that could be more robust and up-to-date". Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, BigFix, Tanium and Quest KACE Systems Management, whereas Red Hat Satellite is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, SUSE Manager, AWS Systems Manager, BigFix and Chef. See our Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Red Hat Satellite report.
See our list of best Configuration Management vendors.
We monitor all Configuration 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.