ManageEngine Endpoint Central Reviews

Our primary use case is to manage most aspects of the endpoints in 21 remote sites. All sites are connected via IPSec VPN mesh and have distribution servers at each site, OS deployment, software deployment, patch management, remote administration, configurations, mobile device management, and browser management. One of my favorite features is a simple remote CMD. This enables us to troubleshoot certain things without interfering with the user desktop session or needing to ask them to take remote control of the machine. It's very valuable being able to fix a problem without stopping user productivity.

It has become a single pane of glass for a majority of client support and administration. It has enabled my team to quickly identify machines, who is using it, what applications are installed, and a huge set of tools to solve most problems. OS imaging and deployment has significantly reduced the amount of time and resources needed to deploy a large set of new computers or even just reimage a problematic PC because of malware or other problem that would take much longer to troubleshoot. Software deployment has taken the task of installing a common application on hundreds of computers to just a few clicks.

Honestly, I have to say all features together have become the Swiss army knife of desktop management. They all work hand in hand. Software deployment saves an unbelievable amount of time installing an application on hundreds of computers. A full suite of remote administration tools to troubleshoot problems or make a change via PowerShell without intruding on the user desktop. Mobile device management eliminated the problem of missing iPads or iCloud locked tablets and phones. The mundane process of patch management is now a breeze.

I really feel like asset explorer should be a component of desktop central. That would make it the ultimate desktop management tool. This would also simplify the asset management role since an agent is already being deployed and assets could be added at the same time.  the CMDB would be quickly populated with a PC hardware and software inventory along with user relationships. Device assignment and tracking would be another added value. Adding that feature set would tie everything together and be the one-stop-shop of desktop management suites.

Approximately a year.

It's very stable it just seems to always work.

Very scalable. Distribution servers are the main factor.

The few times we have contacted customer support they have always very quickly solved the problem. Every support agent has been very professional and curteous. 

We did not use a different solution. We did a trial Desktop central and immediately fell in love with it and have not regretted the decision.

It was very easy to setup initially. The side effect is you will spend a lot of time tweaking and fine-tuning everything. 

In-house.

Time saved is money saved.

Go with what you can afford. Every part of the application is going to save time and money and a very worthwhile investment.

We did not evaluate competing products. Everything we were looking for was there and worked well and was easy to use.

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.

We use the product to know about our assets and manage remote support. 

The tool's security can be better. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

The tool is stable. 

The solution is scalable. My company has 7000 users for the product. 

We don't require any support from the product since we have a good engineer. 

The product's setup is easy. We have around 45 people to manage the tool. 

The solution's deployment was done in-house. 

I have seen ROI with the tool's use. 

The product is cheap. 

I would rate the solution an 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 used it about six months ago. We implemented it in the last company I worked with. We were using it for patching, rolling out images, and other similar things.

We were using the most recent version.

I like being able to image over the network. That's a nice feature that it has. Patch management is pretty decent on it as well.

The only problem with it is that the setup isn't very intuitive. I know that they just upgraded the product to make it a little bit easier to use, but compared to some of the other platforms, it is not easy to configure it, set it up, and get it running. However, once you have set it up and got it running, it runs great.

Once it was set up and running, there were no issues with it. It seems to run fairly well.

It is scalable. I was the admin for this system, and we probably had over a thousand end-users. I was the only one who knew how to use it at the time.

Their tech support was pretty good. For any issues we had, they'd come in and work with us and get them resolved pretty quickly.

Its setup isn't very intuitive.

We had perpetual licenses. The cost was around 36,000, and then you'd have the yearly maintenance fee of 2,000 or 3,000.

They have a service where they come in and configure it or do the setup for you for a price. I don't remember the price, but it was pretty reasonable. If you're not familiar with the platform, that might be a good thing to go with, especially if you don't want to go in and do the ifs and buts trying to set it up. It would be a lot easier if you had them come and set it up for you. With all the alerting and everything else that you have to set up with it, it takes a minute to get it up and running and have everything the way you wanted.

I'd give it an eight out of 10. I was really happy with it.

We use the product for endpoint security.

They provide good services.

The product's remote access manager needs improvement. The wake-up takes longer time, sometimes more than five minutes. It could respond immediately.

I have been using ManageEngine Endpoint Central for one or two months. At present, I use the latest version.

I rate the platform's stability a seven out of ten.

We have approximately 2000 ManageEngine Endpoint Central users in our organization. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The initial setup process is good. It requires a technical team of seven to ten engineers for deployment and takes an hour or two to complete. Later, we need to maintain the product as well.

The product is not expensive. I rate its pricing a seven out of ten.

I rate ManageEngine Endpoint Central a seven out of ten. We encounter issues related to the quality of services.

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. 

We use this product for:

• User management and Patch management.
• Application and software deployment management, which is made very easy using its software.
• Remote support on different platforms like macOS, Windows, Linux, and tablets (Android and iOS).
• Software usage monitoring by the users.
• Providing endpoint security and assets management.
• Discovering the software license and warranty details. 
• Device control like USB and security policies.
• Effectively applying restrictions on end-user devices like cameras and browsers.

Having one single portal for all of our patch management, application management, mobile device management, and remote support has greatly improved our IT capabilities. Previously, we were using different tools for each different purpose.

The endpoint security helps us control the user device as per the IT policies. 

OS deployment and software deployment have saved the IT department a large amount of time during the mass onboarding.

Using desktop central has increased the efficiency of the asset management in our company. 

The most important feature we found to be useful in the COVID situation is the secure connection, which gives the IT support staff the ability to seamlessly connect with the users remotely and in a secure way. They can connect to almost all of the operating systems including Windows, Linux, macOS, and tablets. This also gives great control to the IT support staff, who remotely connect to the users during emergencies.

The patch management of the different operating systems in our environment is also made easy by using the desktop central software. 

There is a slight delay in customer support, which is something that can be improved.

We would like to see more integration on the macOS side, much as it is with Windows. There are still some access-level restrictions that we can see in the latest macOS when we connect desktop central remote. This is something that should be improved in the next release.

We have been using ManageEngine Desktop Central for two and a half years.

It is quite a stable product and we have access to customer support if there are any issues. Make sure that you subscribe to an annual support contract.

It's pretty good at scaling up. You just need to buy a license and it's ready to use.

The technical support is good but sometimes, there is a slight delay in response. 

We did not use another similar product before this one.

The setup was a bit complex initially but with use, we have become experts now.

Our implementation was done through a vendor.

We have been using this product for the past two and a half years and we have seen a 90% ROI. 

It's relatively cheap if you take the overall product. Choose wisely between the Professional and Enterprise editions, based on your needs.

We evaluated TeamViewer for remote support, as well as Microsoft System Center.

Overall, given the capabilities of Desktop Central, it is one of the best endpoint management solutions and it can cater to most of the operating systems in a client's environment, through a single portal.