We performed a comparison between Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager and Kaseya VSA based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Patch Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product is easy to use, easy to implement, and easy to manage."
"It's been doing a lot for us, especially with third-party software patching and scheduling. We create multiple projects for monthly patch distribution and manage it all well."
"Clear visibility regarding the status of the endpoint."
"When it comes to Ivanti Patch for endpoints, I find peer-to-peer patching valuable. Having a peer-to-peer patching capability is highly beneficial for us."
"The product's support team is very quick to respond, especially because the tool's technical team operates in the same time zone where I am located."
"The training that we received was quite good."
"When compared to what we were previously using, one of the most appealing features is that it combines remote control, patch management, and software management into a single portal."
"The most valuable features of this solution are automation, inventory, and patch management."
"The most valuable part of this solution is the security features that it offers."
"I like the Live Connect module provided by Kaseya. It is a powerful module. I also like the Agent Procedure module. We work with it most of the time."
"The patching is very efficient and we can rely on the alerts that we receive."
"The most valuable features of Kaseya VSA are remote control, live connect, and automation."
"Inability to configure a rule-based management."
"The UI must be more user-friendly."
"The major challenges are macOS updates, patching, and backups. And for drawbacks, I wish Patch management was cloud-based instead of hosted on our own server."
"It would be great to have an easier way to patch Linux machines within the product."
"Kaseya VSA could be improved with more features to support the latest operating systems."
"The product's user interface is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"The technical support of the solution is an area with shortcomings that needs improvement."
"The reporting feature in Kaseya VSA could improve by being more user-friendly. The reporting overview is too wordy or the representation can be better."
"The main difference would be the addition of audio transfer between the end-user and the remote connectivity software. That is the one critical piece that we are currently lacking."
"The user interface is somewhat outdated."
"The stability of the solution is good but it can be improved."
"Some configurations and abilities from the system are not of use. The solution should offer webinars or some sort of training offerings to help users learn what the system can do and how it can be done."
More Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager is ranked 17th in Patch Management with 4 reviews while Kaseya VSA is ranked 4th in Patch Management with 29 reviews. Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager is rated 7.6, while Kaseya VSA is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager writes "Smoothly handles software patching and scheduling, enabling monthly patch distribution across multiple projects". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaseya VSA writes "Single portal management, cost-saving, with thorough technical support". Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager is most compared with GFI LanGuard, Ivanti Security Controls and Microsoft Configuration Manager, whereas Kaseya VSA is most compared with Microsoft Configuration Manager, ConnectWise Automate, NinjaOne, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services and Datto Remote Monitoring and Management. See our Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager vs. Kaseya VSA report.
See our list of best Patch Management vendors.
We monitor all Patch 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.