BigFix Reviews

We are using BigFix for Windows patching, querying the configuration management, and reports.

The most valuable feature of BigFix is the reporting tool and patching Windows.

BigFix should improve its compatibility with other platforms, such as Linux.

I have been using BigFix for approximately two years.

I have experienced good stability while using BigFix in Windows. However, it is not good with Linux.

BigFix has been scalable.

We have approximately 30 users who use the solution.

If the support is available for Linux, we would like to increase our usage.

Sometimes we need to have support, and there is a toll-free number we can use to connect to their help team. We rarely face any issues.

The installation is straightforward.

Our internal software team does the implementation and support of the solution.

We have a subscription-based contract with BigFix.

I would recommend this solution to others. It is a very good tool for Windows and for reporting.

I rate BigFix an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for automated server patching. It integrates with our change management tool. It replaced SCCM for Windows. 

Servers are patched more consistently than they have been previously.

Some of the most valuable features are the development of the patches, the fixlets, and not having to bundle things ourselves. 

I would like to see integration of user security between the different products to be improved. There's separate security for compliance, separate security for web reports, and the console, and you have to manage those things separately. 

It's very stable.

It's very scalable. It handles it effortlessly for our needs. 

The first level two support was a little spotty a year ago. It's improved. I get a B, B plus from them. The knowledge of the first line of support seemed to be limited. 

Once you've done the setup once, it's not that complex. Initially, it can be a little bit complex to get your head around, but now that I've done it a couple of times, I don't deem it to be overly complex.

We used IBM Professional Services and it was a good experience. 

I would rate BigFix an eight out of ten. It's powerful, has low administrative overhead, it's reliable, and not too expensive. Not a ten because there's always room for improvement. 

Patch is a given and it is the flagship feature since the late 1990s. The architecture for patching and the 100% correct reporting makes BigFix stand apart from other solutions. Software Distribution is another powerful and strong feature that automates deploying software and saves a ton of time. The BigFix framework also gives you the ability to remove software and updates files, like configuration.

Patching is completed usually within a day or two. 98% of the endpoints are patched in the first pass no matter if they are all the corporate or traveling.

The new EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) feature, Detect, is new and still needs a few updates. This is close to being a great addition to help when an attack has occurred.

Five years.

No stability issues. If relays are not configured correctly, then this can cause a performance issue. An occasional health check is needed to ensure the solution is running at peak performance.

BigFix can scale up to 250,000 endpoints on one server.

The deep technical resources are very good and can isolate an issue very quickly.

We started with SCCM and decided to switch because of inaccurate reporting, limited OS support, and we were unable to patch remote endpoints.

Initial setup is very simple. With the Web User Interface, it makes the learning curve very short.

I would stay with the Managed Virtual Server license model, which is a 1-to-1 license per OS whether it is virtual or physical.

Yes. SCCM, LANDESK, Altiris, and Tanium.

You will not be impressed with the looks of the reports, but they are accurate. The BigFix.me forum is a great place to learn from others.

BigFix is a good product with good technical support. We are updating the package and everything, so there are no issues.

BixFix is good, but they have to update the product. For example, we need AI, ML, and IIT. We also want to edit the discovery of our assets less.

There are some status problems we can't really call a bug. We want them to improve and offer these things. I want a Manager of Manager. I also want to see the multiple control and a multiple report format. I want to get the whole report within a single console.

It's like you have a simple car and you want to buy a BMW. A simple car also works, and every car has four wheels. But we all want more power, to be more agile, and receive more status updates.

I have been using BigFix for six years.

The stability of BigFix isn't bad.

The scalability of BigFix isn't bad.

BigFix technical support is good.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give BigFix a seven.

We use it for patching our AIX servers and we also use it for deploying and up keeping our Tivoli workload scheduler application.

We've been able to fully automate our TWS installs, to the point where a user requests it and we don't do anything. Also, our upgrades are much more refined than the manual processes we did before.

The most valuable feature for us is the ability to manage TWS, the relevance is really what sets it apart. Also, using it as a software deployment tool is the key for us.

I'm looking for them to make big web UI improvements.

Stability is very good. We've had very little downtime.

Scalability is very good. We're a smaller client in the BigFix realm. We're 4,500 clients around just the servers but it's very good for us.

Technical support has been good. When IBM first took over it was kind of rocky but in the last few years, it's definitely improved.

The initial setup was very straight forward and very easy to set up.

I would rate it a ten out of ten. It's very useful, very powerful, and you can do a lot with it. 

I would tell a colleague who's considering this solution to check it out, it's great.

I have various use cases for this solution. It has many varieties of infrastructure. For example, if you have a very high bandwidth in your network infrastructure, it will work very well. If it doesn't have an internet connection, it also works very well. If you have a lower bandwidth within your offices, it will also work very well. This is lacking in many other tools. 

My company provides support services to a lot of customers and companies. We have reduced a huge amount of man-effort. Along with the man-effort, we have reduced the timeline to fix the compliance and security gaps. We have an unbroken record. The documentation clearly says that we have done the patching of newly released patches, including Microsoft and third-party patches, in up to 80% of the computers, within 72 hours of the release of the production. That was a very massive benefit that we have seen. When I talk about the 80% endpoints, it is 100 or 200. I am talking about 25,000 endpoints.

There are 250,000 endpoint scans that can be handled by one single server. We can build a robust infrastructure within BigFix, which is a feature that other tools are lacking. Second, you can customize the tool. We can use the tool according to how we need it. By using IBM BigFix, we can get whatever we need done. All tools will have limitations but when compared to other solutions, BigFix has significantly fewer limitation. In terms of scalability, the limitations are in the data transfer from the main server to the regional servers, or regional endpoints, or the end users. It provides various aspects to what is endpoint protection management.

The first and foremost thing that I would like to see improved is the insight into the right-click menu context itself. The second thing is that IBM has sold IBM BigFix to another company. That's negative feedback that we can give them. For the next quarter, BigFix will not be a part of IBM. That's another drawback that we are going to see. 

I would request them to build robots, or an easier way for integration with other tools, like ITSM tools.

When it comes to stability, it is very stable and it has a robust infrastructure.

I have a good grip on this solution so I don't need to contact technical support for anything. 

When considering a solution the criteria we consider are the features, whether the specific tool provided by that vendor will cater to our services or our requirements. Second, we look into the credibility of the OEM. Third, is the cost.

The initial setup depends on the network infrastructure. Sometimes it will be very easy to implement, and sometimes it may become complex. I did the entire solution implementation in four hours but I took almost four months with another implementation because of the complexity. Sometimes it's straightforward, sometimes it's complex.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. It has great scalability and customization. It also has one console that can be used for many endpoint management tasks. I deducted two points because BigFix is not a brand that you can just use. It is not very user-friendly. You need to have some training before you use the tool.

The most valuable features are the endpoint management capabilities of what you can actually control on your endpoints, as far as vulnerability assessment, compliance, and making sure that they are up to date on multiple platforms. One single-user-stop-shop is really awesome.

A benefit is being able to do it from a single place; whether it's Windows, Linux or Solaris, the user interaction doesn't change for the operators. We can teach one on Windows and one on Solaris to do the same thing. For them it's very simple, because it all looks the same. That why I dig it.

Scalability is big for us. To be able to scale faster and quicker, with more people coming in. Probably, more of a cloud initiative presence would be good, possibly as a SaaS, that would be amazing. Yeah, I think that's what we are looking for.

Stability is solid. Very, very solid. We rarely have issues and if there are, it was usually due to old architecture issues, but we've taken care of that and since then, we really haven't had any.

Scalability could be better. I know they're improving it. They are talking about it. They preached about it a lot at a recent IBM conference, specifically. We are kind of looking forward to that.

Technical support is getting better. About five years ago, it was horrible. Over the last couple of years, it's gotten better; more engagement and more knowledge transfer, it seems like, to the first-tier level support for IBM.

I came into the company and it was already there. So, I'm not sure about previous solutions.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

It is a highly effective tool if you're cross-platform. It really gets the job done simply.

I really do dig it. I had worked with it previously, got a different job, not using it. After a little bit I came back and just looked for a job that was still using the BigFix tool. I sought out jobs specifically looking for it.

Knowledge of the tool is important when selecting a vendor. Anyone can come and take you out to lunch, or wine and dine you. That's fine, they all do it. But to be able to have someone walk up to you and know how the tool actually functions is most important to me. I don't know which vendors were evaluated.

It's easy to manage. It gives me great power over the devices that I manage with very little effort, compared to other products. With other products, it takes a lot more effort just to do the same kind of work.

It has one central location to manage all the different platforms that we have such as desktop, Windows Servers, Linux Server, Solaris, AIX and zLinux. It's great to be able to manage them all from one central location.

The feature that I would like them to implement is for the command line and I know this is probably against the design. We come from the command line and sometimes, you want to talk to the agent in real time. Seems like now with the new BigFix CLI, it's heading in that direction. It's something that we've been craving for, because sometimes you want to just talk to this agent and not have to wait. You just want to discuss things with them and get the result back. That will be great. Still, you have to dance around and probably do some voodoo in order to get that data back. We come from the old framework, in which you send a command and get your return back. This kind of power is gone in BigFix, but we love all the other stuff.

Usually after upgrades, you have some hiccups but they're manageable. It's kind of common between products, after upgrades; either it is a learning curve or it could be a bug and then it's fixed in subsequent patches. So, nothing out of the ordinary, but it scales well.

This solution scales well.

I use the technical support for stubborn kind of issues, that won't go away. However, not as much as for the other products. They're very knowledgeable and it sounds like a different breed with the IBM support.

Actually, we had all the tools and we pulled them out, after which we went to BigFix. The reason why we chose this solution is because the government paid for it.

The setup is very easy. I usually have to tell them how hard it is, but then I can do it within a day. So, this is also a very big feature.

This product is extremely easy. If you've never implemented this type of three-tier architecture tool, then you don't know it. But, for anybody who has carried out such an implementation before, it is very straightforward.

Support is the most crucial criteria while selecting a vendor, because when things hit the wall and everybody's heated and trying to finger-point, you want someone that have the backbone to say, "We'll take care of it." IBM can do that. They never try to say, "No." They take the heat really well and they control it. Big corporations are looking for that kind of security that the company can provide and they're going to put as much resources as needed, so as to get the problem solved.