BigFix Reviews

I use BigFix to help collect information on endpoints to assist my team in troubleshooting break/fix tickets. I also use it to proactively create solutions for problems that come up and to help with patching of individual applications as well as for checking for compliance on an operating system level.

Being able to intelligently create reports, gather data, export CSVs and give that to the leadership of some of the client groups that my team supports has been a benefit to my organization. 

There are instances where we have been able to utilize BigFix to reduce help desk calls by automating certain things. Along with the concept of savings calls for the help desk it's saving individual help desk tickets that get navigated to our group by automating things which save us man-hours.

The most valuable feature is the ability to create my own properties and analyses to collect information so that folks who might only have access to web reports, but not the console, can gather information and I can create reports to give to the leadership of my client groups.

The stability is generally pretty good. The one thing that we came across is the battle between load on endpoints and load on our servers and relays versus how quickly, effectively and reliably actions can be taken. I'd like to not have to take an action on a system while I'm working with someone and then have to say whether something will happen between five seconds or thirty minutes from that point. 

I haven't messed with SCCM too much. There's a lot of things that are desirable in SCCM regarding scalability. There are lots of workflows that exist that SCCM is pretty universally used and can make things happen instantly. It can also help with a lot of the zero configuration, zero-touch computerization things but we get to get a little more specific with BigFix. We can employ a lot of things from all kinds of different sources to help tailor our solutions and we have better functionality with Mac and Lenox.

My experience is that you can get really deep and detailed with this solution and the sky is the limit in terms of how complicated you can get if you're willing to dig in and spend the time to learn how BigFix works and invent some of your own processes.

Our primary use of this solution is for compliance management, patching, and security configuration management.

It allows us to quickly deploy capabilities that we need, whether it be security or non-security. We use it to keep systems up to date, deploy new drivers, and find the information we need in the case of security incidents. The capability allows us to gather a lot of information very quickly and it also allows us to have a centralized reporting feature and a centralized deployment capability, which is nice.

It has helped to reduce network traffic when it comes to downloading patches with the relay structure. Talking from the corporate server down to the relays and then to the endpoints, it has helped from that perspective. It still causes impacts, not because of the capability itself but because of the content that's being provided by Microsoft and other vendors is just so large that it starts having impacts whether you want it to or not, no matter what kind of infrastructure you put in place.

The flexibility of the capability of being able to use the out-of-the-box content that we get from the vendor as well as develop our own capabilities on top of the core capability is the most valuable feature. 

The scalability of the web UI product doesn't scale to the size that we need for our implementation so it needs to expand. I would also like to see the capability to develop on the back of the web UI capability. There are lots of web features and integrations that we could do with web UI that it would be nice to be able to put on top of what's already there, rather than waiting for IBM to develop what we need.

The core capability is very strong and hasn't changed a lot. Sometimes it is harder than others to get to some of the newer features, mostly just because we have a very large install base, and so having the time to roll out new capabilities is hard. Overall the stability and the upper trend of the capability is very good.

Scalability is good. 

Overall, technical support is very good. Sometimes you have to figure out a different way to get to what you want and you have to escalate through multiple layers to get to the right solution. We've been using the tool for long enough that we don't need the easy help, we need the hard help. Sometimes that's really hard to get to and then the turnaround cycle between when we report an issue and when we hear back and being able to get data to the right people at the right time, we end up having to re-open tickets over and over again because we don't have the data that they need. Sometimes they ask for something and we have to go ask somebody else for it and get it back to them and by then the SLA has run out, so that's not good.

We implemented internally. We've worked with IBM professional services for new capability and assistance with improving our overall capability but we didn't use them directly to implement. We've been using the tool for a really long time.

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

I would rate it a seven or eight out of ten. The pain points that we have are particular to us just because of the size of our implementation, the number of endpoints, etc. Overall, I think it's a great product and a product that most people would really get a lot of benefit out of. The things that we struggle with are things that are particular to our organization.

If you're considering this solution, get involved with the user community early, make relationships with the development organizations, learn how you can advocate for yourself. User group kind of things are the best way to learn. Learning from other people who have been using the tool for a long time is probably the easiest way to see the most effective implementation and best use of your resources using the tool.

• Patch Management
• Software Distribution
• Security Compliance
• Software Compliance

Patch compliance has improved. Using software distribution, the software distributed in the environment has been standardized. With the same software versions across the environment, compatibility issues have come down with a reduction in helpdesk tickets arising out of different software versions. There is also a check on software assets by means of implementing the software inventory module and a great deal of software compliance has been achieved.

Patch Management for a variety of operating systems makes it valuable as we can rely on a single tool for obtaining patch compliance of the entire compute infrastructure. This also ensures that we do not need to have different skills for different OS patch requirements.

• Relay selection and availability needs improvement as an incorrect relay selected can cause network chokes.
• Client reporting to the console is a minor issue but definitely needs improvement.
• Reporting needs to be enhanced with maybe a simple GUI based report generator with drag and drop features to create a custom report. The current mechanism is a bit clunky by use of filters.  

It is very stable.

No scalability issues. We have customers ranging from 250 endpoints to over 100,000 endpoints.

Customer support is excellent, but involving customer support and crossing the initial hurdles of getting past the first level of support personnel sometimes takes a while. But once it lands with the right support people the support is excellent. Level 1 support from IBM definitely needs improvement. 

No other tools were used.

The setup is pretty straightforward provided you have planned well for the deployment. Know the environment well prior to deployment: The architecture needs to be drawn up prior to deployment. Plan the deployment of main server, database server, BigFix application(s), relays, console, and finally the deployment of clients.

We are a BigFix vendor. We rate ourselves as excellent subject matter experts. Given the exposure and experience of handling fairly large deployments on Bigfix, we have gathered vast knowledge in the Patch, Security & Software compliance space.

ROI is pretty quick if you consider Security & Software Compliance as your primary use cases as Patch Management and Software Inventory Management. It has worked out to be under six months in many of our deployments. You may not be able to directly attach a ROI for security, but given the fact that Bigfix has been able to address many vulnerabilities that arise out of non patching makes Bigfix a compelling investment

Plan well to ensure you have a stable and scaleable deployment. If you have a need for many use cases: Patch Management, Software Distribution, Remote Control, OS Deployment, Software Asset Management, Vulnerability Management, Security Compliance, and Server Automation, make sure you prioritize your requirements before deployment. You should go about meeting the requirements in phases, not try and burn the entire ocean.  

No other products evaluated.

Get started with BigFix.

• Being able to see inside every asset that we have
• Finding those assets
• Being able to deep dive and pull reports of any kind that we want
• Customizable

If we're looking for some data that is not there natively, we can make it appear in our reports.

We get audited quite a bit because of PCI compliance. There are a lot of requirements that we have to meet on our endpoints to reach that certification for the compliance. BigFix allows us to see the data and remediate those vulnerabilities quickly and easily.

Providing information about areas with room for improvement is tough. I recently attended a roadmap session, and they're pretty much addressing a lot of the stuff we have.

I would like to see more automation, and that's the name of the game. That's our world: automation. I would like to see a way in which we could simplify things even further, so it would be almost like automation on top of automation. It's kind of a funny idea.

But if you have a solution to patch things, then we're going to automate the patching. That makes sense. Then we're going to automate the automation. That's pretty impressive.

When you look at the console of the tool, it is very basic. But basic can be good, too. Too much information is just going to convolute anything. It is just all text-based and it's kind of ugly, but you don't need it to be pretty either.

The stability is great. Any product that can basically run itself, requires minimal intervention, and is self-healing is a great tool.

The scalability is even better because all you have to do is just whip up another server, and boom, you can support another thousand clients. And that takes a whole five minutes.

It's been a few years since we used technical support, but we got direct contact from an engineer right away. He was not just a sales guy, but an actual engineer who came in and worked with us. That was good.

Currently, we have our solution and we put in the BigFix solution. It was all because of the PCI compliance. We got a new security team in and they were completely focused on PCI. The previous solution didn't quite meet the requirements that made it easy. Now with BigFix, it's a lot more straightforward.

The first setup was complex. The second time was much simpler, when we knew what we were doing.

The first setup was kind of wedged in and we had a very small time frame. It was a brand new tool that we didn't know much about. We also didn't know that we had engagement support available to us. That is why the second setup went smoother.

You've got to do a proof of concept and a proof of technology. Get it in there and see what it can do. But more importantly, as you're putting it in, see how quickly you can do it and then see how easy it is to remediate those vulnerabilities. You'll be amazed.

When it comes to selecting a vendor, it's got to be brand. You have the big names: Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, and all that good stuff. But price has to be considered as well. If you can get a great product at a good price, it's very important.

Being able to hit all of our endpoints is the most beneficial feature of this solution. It mainly gives us a lot of consistency. For example, with the previous product that we were using for endpoint management, we were getting like 70-80% completion on most tasks. With BigFix, it has moved past that and we're now achieving 98-99% completion.

It just streamlined the whole process, because it allows us to manage everything from one endpoint solution. It's reliable. So, we never had to spend time with the senior technicians for circling back to remediate all the ones that it missed.

Probably, there is need to just expand the WebUI and make it a full management console and really deprecate the Windows-based command console. They should definitely update the web reports to make it up to the executive level, something I'd actually want to show them, i.e., instead of having to rebuild everything outside in Excel.

In brief, it needs to expand the WebUI, get more granular permissions and then just getting web reports, that are on par with the year we're in.

We just ran into something, during the last update of version 9.5.3. We're still trying to figure out, if it was the update or not. But, we've had a couple of issues recently with some different things and as to how it's running, as far as the permissions go. Other than that, it has been great.

It goes back to reliability. I was in this company before they started using BigFix. We broke it over and over on our old endpoint system and it was just getting to the point where it wasn't even saving us time anymore. That's how we knew we had to invest in a new solution.

For us, initial setup wasn't complex because we are a fully owned subsidiary of a company that already had it all built out. Basically, they just added us in. For us, it was super straightforward, just like a simple click.

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.

Be careful. It's a super powerful tool. It can be unforgiving, i.e., if you do some of the things wrong, it can be a nightmare. There are a couple of things that we've learned in our environment, especially with the APIs and some of those things that can be devastating, if they're done wrong.

Our primary use case of this solution is for security patching and application patching.

From a security standpoint, it allows us to make sure that we're not leaving ourselves vulnerable to exploits and things like that. That's the biggest advantage that we see to the product from a security standpoint. 

We use it to compare current and past patch cycles. We usually roll the baselines into every patch cycle. We do some recording on previous patch cycles and stuff like that, and how effective each baseline is.

It has helped to compress our patch cycles from a long time ago. We were patching individually each day, then we were able to compress them all into a month.

I'm not sure by what percentage but it has helped to reduce help desk calls, in terms of security vulnerabilities, but it has reduced the amount of vulnerabilities and the security notifications we get. Also, self-service lets us install notifications, not like sending a front line support personnel.

Some of the most valuable features would be: 

• The custom content 
• Baselines
• Inventory
• Application usage

I would like to see: 

• More custom content
• Better content for Mac 
• Automated patching. They have this but I'm looking for improvements.
• Automated baselines for patching.

Stability is good. It works well. When it works, it works great. It's pretty quick to respond.

Scalability is good. From my other experience using the relays and things like that, it scales pretty widely. We have a pretty good amount of endpoints and it works well for us.

Technical support is good. We have a close relationship with people who work in the company. We are fortunate where we get direct communication with them, so it's good.

We weren't previously using a solution, so we knew we had to invest in one. We brought in a bunch of different solutions and BigFix was the one that won out. 

The initial setup was was complex because it was new. The help that they gave us and the documents that they gave us were really straightforward. The first time I set it up there was a learning curve, but the second time it was real easy.

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.

I would rate BigFix an eight or nine. We've been using it for a really long time and we're happy customers. 

I would advise someone considering BigFix to split it up and compare it to what you're looking at. You'll see that it can do more than other competitors. 

Our primary use of this solution is for patching all of our systems and maintaining their security compliance.

It enables us to patch our systems quickly and within expectations and to increase our volume as needed. It has also helped us compress our patch sites. We used to do it monthly but now we do it weekly.

Compared to SCCM, I always feel like I'm fighting the tool. I do not feel that way with BigFix.

The ability to build custom content and scale to additional endpoints without increasing staff time is the most valuable feature. 

I'd definitely like to see additional feature parody in the web UI versus the console. There are certain things that you can only do in the console and they're very cumbersome to do, like secure parameters, for example. That's definitely something that has a wide degree of utility but it needs to be easier to surface. At this particular juncture between the transition, between the Legacy console and the web UI, it's hard to justify dealing with the cumbersome aspects of the Legacy console when theoretically everything's been through the web UI.

Stability is very good. We have no issues with it.

Technical support has always been useful and they have always ultimately provided a solution.

The initial set up was very simple, single server. We've since grown to a server plus an array of relays and we even use relays to get into some difficult to reach network areas. It's been pretty useful.

We implemented in-house. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten and I'd advise someone considering this solution to start with one relay. Remember that it is a root shell robot. If you can do it on the shell you can do it with BigFix.

Our primary use case is for content automation and application delivery.

The use of fast query has been extremely valuable providing insight in real time of the endpoints.

Reliability of the agent and the ability to troubleshoot actions after they've been taken are the most valuable features. 

The self-service application seems to need some work to replace the client UI. There are a lot of pop-ups if you use a baseline as the object that you're setting to a workstation. Unless you're using web UI, the message is not customizable in the user notification.

The stability is good overall. 

The scalability seems to be fine. 

I have to contact technical support infrequently, which is good. When I have to use them, I do get responses in a relatively timely manner.

Our previous solution was extremely unstable. We had a lot of downtime and the inability to reach clients. We ended up choosing BigFix because it was already in an aspect of our organization, and so it was easy to adopt for our endpoints.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. The applications are stable, although at times a little dated on how they display information or how they chunk through information. It's stable and it functions.

The best advice I can give is to reach out to the user community when you're running into trouble. You'll find a lot of the answers have already been asked and answered for you on the forums.