We performed a comparison between Microsoft Windows Server Update Services and Quest KACE Systems Management 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 most valuable feature is Server Update's stability."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to identify which updates are needed on a particular machine."
"Downloads critical reports separately."
"The most important aspect is that we can centrally deploy the updates that are necessary for the organization. It's important."
"The central points of managing product updates have been the tool's most valuable features."
"PowerShell is a valuable feature."
"Once we configure it and it keeps updating the patches, all I need to do is filter out which patches are required or not."
"The tool's most valuable feature is Active Directory."
"The solution provides us a single pane of glass with everything that we need for endpoint management of all devices. It definitely has made our endpoint management process much easier."
"The service desk can be configured and customized to better serve our environment."
"I can reach people now that I couldn't have reached previously. We are saving about 25 percent in time."
"The single pane of glass for managing devices is helpful because it allows me to perform updates and control things without having to disturb the doctors or nurses."
"We can get the majority of what we need with this product and do not have to spend money on something else."
"This product made the job easy to do without having to go put hands on the machines."
"The big pros of Quest KACE Systems Management are its simple interface, and simple, direct management. It's very easy to maintain and manage the device, and it's easy to get it up and running. You can have it up and running in an hour..."
"It also does patch management. At the moment, I'm rolling out a new feature update, 20.8.2, and it's a great challenge because we have to deploy it to 1,200 computers in the home office. We want to do it without interrupting production, but KACE is reliable and it's easy to adapt it to my needs for how and when to deploy the feature update."
"In the next release, I would like them to provide better connectivity. They must improve the connectivity between the WSS with Microsoft or the client."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could improve by being less cumbersome to use. It's somewhat difficult to use, but we manage to get through it."
"A few bugs need to be figured out for the security side."
"The only complex part was the solution’s tricky setup phase."
"The product lacks to offer some of the features offered by some of the open source solutions like Linux and others, making it an area where improvements are required."
"The old backup files created by this solution use up a lot of storage, and this needs to be improved."
"Some issues with scalability in larger organizations."
"Job management and control is an area that is in need of improvement."
"I have complaints about smart label adaptation and because of this, I recommend a 24 to 48 hour bake-in period."
"I still need better communication about which processes are really due and which processes are currently being processed. According to the initial setup service provider, there is still no real management or overview on KACE where you can really see 100 percent of what is going on as well as what is going to be processed next and whether I can influence the overall process. It could really help me if I knew, e.g. exactly in 10 minutes my colleague will be supplied with this or that software. I haven't found this yet. If they could add this, that would be cool. It is still missing and I haven't yet found something like this."
"My biggest complaint is that almost every time they send out a new version, it fixes something and breaks another. Something that wasn't working in the last version now works, but something else stops; or they'll remove some dashboard that I really found to be nice and replace it with something totally different that I could care less about."
"Easier integration would be beneficial."
"The KACE Go Mobile App crashes a lot, and it always has. I would love to see that get fixed because it's very convenient when it does work properly, but most of the time it does not."
"I would sure like them to be able to copy and paste out of OneNote. That drives me nuts. You can't copy from OneNote into KACE."
"I've had some issues with patch catalogue."
"Imaging becomes a problem when you start to try to go beyond doing more than thirty or forty machines at a time. We initially tried to do that virtually and it just, it wouldn't work."
More Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Quest KACE Systems Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is ranked 2nd in Patch Management with 41 reviews while Quest KACE Systems Management is ranked 6th in Patch Management with 38 reviews. Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is rated 8.0, while Quest KACE Systems Management is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services writes "Lets us manage all our organization's updates from a single management console". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest KACE Systems Management writes "Easy to use, saves us time, and increases IT productivity". Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is most compared with BigFix, ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Microsoft Configuration Manager, GFI LanGuard and Kaseya VSA, whereas Quest KACE Systems Management is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, BigFix, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Automox. See our Microsoft Windows Server Update Services vs. Quest KACE Systems Management 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.