ManageEngine Endpoint Central Reviews

I used to use the solution at my old workplace, and now I implement it in my new company.

The solution's most valuable features are its patch management capabilities, especially for third-party applications, along with quick and easy configuration and deployment processes. The tool's IT inventory management capabilities are a lot more user-friendly than Microsoft Intune, especially if I consider any kind of reporting. The software deployment process is not too bad.

In relation to ManageEngine Endpoint Central, ManageEngine NGAV seems to be completely useless right now. I don't think they have officially released the latest version of ManageEngine NGAV, but I feel that it might get released later, though it doesn't seem inviting at all. ManageEngine NGAV needs improvement.

I feel that the area revolving around the licensing model of the product needs to be made a bit easier.

The stability part of the product has some room for improvement.

I have been using ManageEngine Endpoint Central for three years. My company is a customer of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I know that the tool is used by thousands of people, but my company has a very small network, so I don't know what to say about the scalability feature of the product.

I have contacted the technical support team of the tool a few times. The solution's technical support is fast to respond. I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

The product's deployment phase was extremely easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

I did not seek any help from a third party for the deployment of the product. As I had used the on-premises version for three years, I found the cloud version was just surprisingly way easier to get started. Even someone without any knowledge of IT can probably get the tool to work.

ManageEngine Endpoint Central's license in models is all over the place, meaning you have to pay for each individual extra module or extra user. I have been trying out a lot of ManageEngine products. The pricing of the product is not bad compared to the other similar solutions in the market.

I have experience with ManageEngine Endpoint Central and Microsoft Intune. I like ManageEngine Endpoint Central since Microsoft Intune can come across as a little time-consuming tool.

I would suggest ManageEngine Endpoint Central for a one-man team doing everything in a company, but a single person probably won't survive by taking care of the technical support and implementation of Microsoft Intune.

At my old workplace, I used to use ManageEngine Endpoint Central since I used to operate as a one-man team. At my new job, I saw that we have a small IT group with three to four members who have been working on Microsoft Intune for about a year, and I saw how we had a hard time rolling out everything in the tool since it had a lot of bugs. I decided to show the people at my new job how ManageEngine Endpoint Central can make work easy.

I decided to use ManageEngine Endpoint Central for IT inventory management and patch management.

I immediately started to see and experience the benefits of using the solution in my company. At my old workplace, when I used to use the on-premises version of the tool, I felt that the product was a bit time-consuming. At my new organization, we were using the cloud version of the product during the trial session, after which, during the initial setup phase, I enrolled 150 machines just to show my colleagues how easy it is to manage ManageEngine Endpoint Central compared to Microsoft Intune. Within a couple of days, though not everything was completely patched with the solution, I felt it was pretty immediate to deliver in the area of patch management.

I rate the tool a seven or eight out of ten.

The solution is used predominantly for our service desk and IT uses it for capturing issues from our users.

The solution has a lot of the features we need and we are looking forward to taking advantage of them after a little bit of training. 

It seems to be pretty straightforward in terms of ease of use. The user interface is good.

We don't have any issues with the pricing. 

The solution is stable.

The product can scale.

The team I've currently got is not using it particularly well, due to the fact that they don't know how to use it particularly well. They've not done any training and so on. There are lots of things that need to be done. Hence, why I was looking to whether it's a good product or not, which I think it is. It's a good enough product, yet in terms of the team, they just don't know what to do. I don't know how good it's going to be. That said, it looks like it's going to be perfect for what we want; it just needs to be matured further.

I am an interim contract head of IT for the Commission, and the company I work with has been using it for about two years. I wanted to see what other potential solutions there might be out there, and also to see how it stacks up against others. I've only been using it for about six months, however, I was looking at the competitors as well.

The stability is good. Once we get going with it, and we get the partners to help us develop it further, it'll be absolutely perfect.

The scalability seems to be okay.

I have no comments in regards to technical support. I've never called them.

I did not previously use a different solution.

I was not around for the initial implementation and therefore cannot speak to how easy or difficult the process was. 

It is my understanding that the company had third-party support to do the implementation.

The cost of the solution is reasonable. 

I have been actively evaluating other solutions. 

We are using a previous version of the solution. It's not the latest version. 

The most important thing, when you're looking at any product, is to make sure you've clearly defined what you're trying to achieve and do, and then go through what it can and can't do for you to make sure you get a good fit. That's the advice I'd give to anyone considering implementing it. 

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I've been pleased with its potential capabilities so far. 

I use only the asset-management part. 

The asset management is a good feature. It's not the best. However, it's a good feature to use.

It is stable and reliable. 

We can scale the product.

The OS deployment could be better.

Technical support from our local partner is not the greatest.

I'm still exploring the solution. There is yet more to uncover.

Typically, if anything was missing, I would put in a feature request. However, I have not done that yet.

I only started using the solution a few months ago.

It is a very stable solution. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze.

It is very easy to expand. You just need to add extra licenses that are required, along with the computer resources. If I add enough computer resources along with the licenses, it's very easy to scale.

We have around 2,000 endpoints on the solution.

How ManageEngine works is they have partner support. In my region, they have only one partner. If my understanding is right, they only have one partner for the full GCC, and the partner I'm with is not great. If you ask me to rate them, it'll be a zero.

The service from the OEM itself, ManageEngine itself, is good. It's just the partner that is not helpful.

I've also worked with VMware. 

We use the asset management from LANDesk Ivanti, although we can't compare all the features as we use it for other processes. 

We had assistance with the setup and only require three admins for maintenance tasks. 

I received professional support for the initial setup.

I don't directly deal with pricing. 

We're customers and end-users. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It's still new to me, and I'm still exploring its capabilities. 

We have been using ManageEngine Desktopcentral UEM edition in our organization for a year now. We have 1,2000 employees on 80 domains in more than 20 countries around Africa and the world. Its always been an issue to effectively manage such a complex environment. We have changed toolsets every 3 years due to shortcomings in the products. Maintaining patching compliance or standardizing security policies are almost impossible without an application to assist. 

Things like enforcing a baseline security compliance become more important every year and now with WFH, the system needs to easily cater for it. To add to the problems of managing a large environment we have to look after mobile devices too. With desktop central, we have been able to maintain patch compliance across our entire estate. Manage software licensing and deployment. Enforce minimum security compliance. Work towards a zero-touch environment with automated deployment and custom scripting. We have used the image capture and deployability to do remote deployment of OS in remote areas where previously we would have to send out a person. 

DesktopCentral allows you to do desktop support without interrupting the user, by using remote event viewer or remote CMD a desktop technician can do troubleshooting without the user knowing. This allows for a more professional and modern way of doing IT support. Integrating into ManageEngine, ServiceDesk Plus has created even further efficiencies by allowing the user to use the agent's self-service portal to request software, create a workflow to have approvals in place, and let desktop central automatically deploy the software once it's approved. 

DesktopCentral also pulls all the CI information from a users machine and keeps a history of things like Software, Hardware, warranty and shipping date. This information gets passed to the ServiceDesk to populate the asset management portion of the desk. Keeping everything “OS Management” in one portal makes life for the engineer easier, the engineer doesn’t need to jump between multiple systems to achieve basic tasks. We also have a vast verity of OSs from windows 7,8,10, Server to CentOS, Ubuntu, and macOS which we are required to manage. DesktopCentral allows for our engineers to offer the same level of support across all platforms, all domains, all networks all the time.

Basic tasks like setting up USB locks on specific departments can be done in as little as three minutes. We have used DesktopCentral to run scripts that enable BitLocker across certain departments and it passes the encryption key back to the security tab within the DesktopCentral portal, this really saves a lot of time and extra expense on third-party tools. We have also locked down all systems for specific applications like BitTorrent and disabled automatic updates also in under three minutes. Maintaining Patch Compliance too.

The ability to run event viewer, task manager, services, command, file browser, certificate all remotely without interrupting users is the most valuable aspect. Software deployment and prohibiting, allowing us to standardize on the software that has been deployed through the environment and then prohibiting illegal software such as torrent applications has been valuable. We have also used the in-depth data gathered from each machine to enhance our Asset management and CMDB and created an array of scheduled reports to keep BU managers unto date on their IT.

I would like to see more click to complete actions such as - USB lockdown for Mac, the ability to check AV compliance on servers, bit locker controls, printer tracking or print page tracking, self-help for self-healing like "BMC my IT" and more options in the self-service menu other than just software - maybe add integration in ADSelfService at the self-service menu. 

I would also like self enrolment page for agent-based deployment like that for the MDM or modern management options. A physical location for agent-based machines like on modern management.

I have been using ManageEngine for one year.

In the year we have run it, its never gone down.

It performs well, the report module is the slowest of the system but its acceptable.

The support team needs work, I have waited months for an answer to some of our requests.

Yes, the solution didn't offer enough options for the complexity of our environment.

The initial setup is straightforward - it's all self-explanatory.

In-house using white papers and previous tooling experience.

We have been able to reduce the amount of people needed to support the environment because of automation ability.

Setup costs are very little, pricing is reasonable and licensing can get complicated but it isn't rocket science.

Yes, Kasaya and SolarWinds.

I recommend trying it for 30 days, you will be surprised.

We do patch management and are enabling this service portal. Users can interact with IT in order to download and install the applications. We also push out software to various departments. It's mainly used for patch management. We tend to test and monitor patches. 

The patch management policies are great. We can handle patches that are highly critical, and it makes handling patch deployment very simple. 

Customization is very easy. 

The dashboard has been very useful. 

It is stable.

The solution is scalable. 

We'd like more compatibility for Mac in the future. That way, we wouldn't need to use two tools for different computers. 

The support could be faster. 

It was a bit expensive. 

We just finished a POC, and we are onboarding the solution right now.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable and the performance is good. 

It is scalable. 

We have 1,000 or more people using the solution. 

The support isn't as good as it could be. We need it to be better. When we send requests, we find it takes too much time. 

I handle technical support for clients, and I troubleshoot where I can. I tend to go through documentation and resolve what I can. Otherwise, I have to reach out to Microsoft, and there can sometimes be a delay in response. 

The initial setup is easy. It's not overly complex. 

Currently, we are using an identity manager like JumpCloud. We are pushing via JumpCloud. If there is a new user, I have already created the groups, and I can just add them in. It's pretty simple. 

The cost of licensing is paid yearly. 

The price is a bit expensive. However, it's not too bad compared to the market.

There are some extra costs as well. If you go for the standard enterprise plan, not many features are covered. You need to trade up to bigger editions that offer more features. 

I am an implementor and admin. 

We have it on-premises and on the cloud as well.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. 

My primary use case is for operating system imaging and deployment. We also use it for software deployment, automatic software updates, and computer remote assistance.

Desktop Central allows us to manage everything related to computing equipment including mobile devices and software licenses in a centralized place.

All of Desktop Central's features are valuable, especially its simplicity.

The team should work on improving the stability, particularly with massive patches deployment, clients are not 100% getting patches and the information provided by the system does not help; more detailed report would be very useful. ManageEngine should provide a periodic health checks for licensed customers; can be a sharing for best practices, tips or recommendation of critical patches or features the customer may have missed.

I've been using Desktop Central for two years.

This solution is scalable.

Excellent technical support, the team is very supportive and responsive to all issues.

Positive

I previously used Microsoft SCCM, but it was difficult to deploy, while Desktop Central is more flexible and user-friendly.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I implemented it by myself, which took two days.

We pay 40,000 per year for Desktop Central, ready to manage any size of IT computing environment without having to pay additional fees.

Desktop Central is easy to deploy, manage, and integrate with other ManageEngine products. I would recommend it to anyone managing a computing environment - it's a complete product for all sizes of enterprise, and it's ready to be deployed straight out of the box. I would score it as nine out of ten.

We are using it for managing desktops and configurations and compliance.

We are using its latest version. We are all up to date with whatever we're doing. It is deployed on-premises.

It helps with compliance. We're moving into a regulated space, and we need to be compliant and have full control over every device. So, the primary purpose of implementing it was compliance.

Identification of gaps and filling the gaps with updates are most valuable. We are able to identify known updates or missing updates and then update.

Each of their products is an independent product, and they don't have anything to do with each other. It is a suite of packages. They all run independently, and they all are a little different because they were acquired differently. They could standardize their portfolio.

We found the team that supports us to be very difficult to understand because of their accent.

I have been using this solution for a year or so.

It is reasonably stable. I had a couple of issues related to corruption, and I worked with their support, but on the whole, it is reasonably stable.

I'm sure it is scalable. It is currently being used by three users. We are using it daily, and we don't have any plans to increase its usage. It is not for any real negative reason. I just don't have a need. I bought it for what I needed it for, and it is doing what it does.

I had some pretty significant problems, and they were very complicated. I've had a number of conversations with them, but the simple truth of the matter is that there were communication problems with their team because of the accent. We found the team that supports us to be very difficult to understand. They had a heavy Indian accent, and it was very difficult to communicate with them.

Neutral

We didn’t use any other solution previously.

It was of medium complexity. You have to get an agent out for every single machine by hand, or you need to push it somehow. It took a couple of weeks.

We implemented it in-house. In terms of maintenance, it requires a fair amount of maintenance. It takes some time. You have to touch it every week and make sure it is working and pushing the code. You have to make sure you're identifying the gaps and the packages to be deployed. You need to build those packages, deploy them, and monitor which ones didn't fire. It is not an install-and-forget package. It is an install-and-use package.

We have seen an ROI. I would rate it a solid four out of five in terms of ROI. The work that one person was doing by hand for each computer in the company is now being done by it in mass. Its value is large because I could free up that person's time to do other work.

The initial purchase was around $6,000 or $7,000. We most probably are not on an annual subscription. We bought it, and then we pay for the maintenance. I'm not 100% sure how that's working out.

We evaluated a couple, but I can't remember what we looked at.

If I re-implement it today, I'd strongly consider a cloud-based infrastructure instead of on-premise.

It is solid. It is a legacy technology, and it has been around forever. It does what it does. It is complicated, but it works. It is not brilliant, but it is highly functional.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

We use it for Windows patching, third-party application patching, and third-party application deployment. 

The advantage of this solution for us is that it has basically centralized all our IT support, both remote and on-prem. We no longer need to do a lot of sneakernet. We're basically doing full remote support with it.

This solution has many valuable features. It's a complete product that allows you to remote troubleshoot, has an inventory of systems, as well as other things. We own the entire suite. The UEM suite allows us to deploy Manage Patching, Deploy OS' as well as MDM Management. We use the entire Swiss Army knife of the product. We use some other ManageEngine products and there's seamless integration between them. They've implemented in-application support so you can type a question to support and you'll get a real time reply, which is great. They really listen to their customers and try to proactively support them. They're constantly listening to feedback and making improvements on the product. It's one of those things where they listen to the customers and they're constantly evolving the product.

There are occasional glitches but they deal with it very quickly and efficiently. They've actually just rolled out a whole new endpoint security add-on that includes the features I've been looking for. 

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

The solution has been fairly stable. It's evolved over time and they've come a long way. It's been a consistently stable platform. We've previously used things like WSUS and Intune for Window Patch deployment, ManageEngine is by far easier to use than those products. 

This is a very scalable solution. It's deployed to our entire organization, so that's about 400 users.

The technical support is great. The challenge is that sometimes support has to go back to development and the lead time can take a while. It's no different to any other company. They're all going to do the same thing. I'd much rather have them fix it right the first time versus coming back constantly with band-aids.

The initial setup is easy. You build a server, you install, you run the executable, it installs. It has a self-contained database and it does its own thing. You're up and running in 10 minutes. Obviously, like any product, it's going to take you time to evolve the product, to use the product, to get to know the product, but you can be up and running in as quickly as 10 minutes.

The cost is fairly reasonable for what you're getting. As an end user, you always want everything for nothing, but the reality of the matter is you get what you pay for so I think the price is fair. If you compare it to things like other patch management and third party tools, I'd say the price is probably fairly good.

We've looked at a lot of solutions and, value for money, this product can't be beat. They're always packing more features into it. We've looked at a couple of other products and they're just more cumbersome to set up and more expensive.

It's worth taking a good look at this solution because I think it's a really good product and it has a lot of features. It has a lot of value added and they have great support.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10.