ManageEngine Endpoint Central Reviews

We carried out a POC on Desktop Central before implementing and it's been in production for two months. Our use case is for patching third-party applications and Windows applications. We use the solution extensively so that aside from the monthly scanning we use it to work on Microsoft vulnerabilities.

We are customers of Desktop Central and I'm an IT Manager. 

Previously, our monthly maintenance would have taken about eight hours, and two or three people continuously on a laptop. Our maintenance is now carried out by this solution and once it's done there just needs to be a check for errors. It's time-saving and resource-saving which is pretty good!

The patch management is really wonderful, it's effortless and just a matter of building a few configurations and creating a few templates which can be reused. The UI is quite good and user-friendly. 

There are a few basic things that haven't been configured in the tool. We're dealing with 600, 700 servers. The way the solution has been configured means you can only see 500 systems at a time. The company has acknowledged that this is an issue but they haven't worked on it yet. It's a little strange given the amount of time the product has been on the market. 

We're working on migrating to Azure. It involves a new patch that was not picked up by Desktop Central. I think it's a problem for them because Azure is everywhere right now and they don't seem to be up to date with the new patches. More needs to be included because everything Microsoft is launching now is more related to Azure.

I've been using this solution for six months. 

Performance is good and stable. If it's working on 600 servers at a time, there is a 90-minute window that it uses to communicate with its agent, and that's divided between all the servers. It can hamper performance at times when compared to other tools where you just click and everything is communicated without any wait time. The IT Ops team uses Desktop Central which, in our company, is two or three people. 

We haven't yet scaled but I believe it will be quite easy. 

We were using batchpatch earlier.

All the ManageEngine products are pretty straightforward when it comes to implementation. There are a few configurations you have to do on a network level for the codes, but it's not complicated. I carried out the deployment with one other person. We contacted the vendor a few times for some assistance but that was it. The POC took about a month and the actual deployment took a week to 10 days including configuring everything on the network level.

In terms of maintenance, the server and installed agent need to be updated on all servers. You do have to check it on your test environment to make sure everything is compatible with a virtual environment, otherwise it could crash your VM. 

The solution is relatively cheap because we purchased the full package. For now, we're only using patch management, but it offers many other things such as software deployment, the ability to create configuration packages and install new software. There are no additional costs to the licensing fee. 

We only recently started using Desktop Central, so we're comparing the results with another solution use, BatchPatch. The Desktop Central UI is very good and easy to use. BatchPatch is a cheaper product so it's more complicated and the UI is not as good. What BatchPatch does have that's lacking in Desktop Central is the granular representation of progress and what's happening on the backend. BatchPatch gives you a clear picture of what's happening step by step and progress per server; it gives you specific errors so you can check and troubleshoot. Desktop Central lacks that visibility. If you're carrying out maintenance of 600 servers, you need to have that visibility, so that if something's not right, you can look into it instead of having to wait eight hours.

If you're new to the solution, check your requirements because the solution is not suitable for every situation. We're using it for a data center, so we configured it differently. If, for example, you're dealing with local laptops on office premises and you're looking to do patch management, a product like Ivanti might be more useful. For us, Desktop Central is pretty good because we are working on servers, and the vulnerability checks we do on the security base are pretty high, so the patch management option of Desktop Central is pretty good. 

There is room for improvement, so I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

I am certified for two of the modules of ManageEngine. I am a certified associate for AD Manager Plus (Active Directory Management) and I also have the certification for Desktop Central. Desktop Central is a management module used to manage devices and services from one location.  

To manage a large number of users and devices and push upgrades and patches, we need a solution that allows us to do that in an efficient way. We can do this with Microsoft Active Directory. That would be our primary use case for this solution. There are other things that we do with it.   

If we want to track an incident more closely to do some root-cause analysis, Desktop Central can help us with this.  

If I have a large group or area of a company that extends into EMEA (Europe, the Middle East, and Africa) and APAC (Asia-Pacific) and maybe LATAM (Latin America) that is on Windows 7 and I want to upgrade multiple devices to Windows 10, I can plan for these upgrades and do them simultaneously. Desktop Central has certain use cases within IT, Ops, and DevSecOps (security as a part of software development and IT operations) roles. Using these you can build a DevSecOps pipeline using Desktop Central.  

In the case of a well-formed pipeline, the Ops is given the liberty to do the releases rather than having to get IT involved at multiple locations. With minimal help, the Ops can do the releases, they just have to define the release and the release goes out smoothly without any IT intervention. The automation process can be built out this way to give technical control to non-technical users. We built our own platform for doing that from scratch Java based. But the technology matured and there are more options available from vendors to solve these issues. We chose to deploy Desktop Centeral as our dedicated solution.  

It has greatly simplified updating and patching within our systems.  

From my hands-on experience, the features I have found the most valuable in Desktop Central is the way it is tightly coupled with the rest of the modules and the entire gamut of ManageEngine. So if I want to collect data about who the users are on the system, I can pull that from the Active Directory. The AD Workbench is a dashboard that gives all the data about the users enterprise-wide.  

Desktop Central has got a dedicated mobile device management module. ManageEngine has got the complete gamut of offerings. It has got asset management, service management, and asset classification. It can do any kind of patch management. It is best at the general management of assets and reporting.  

For example, we can use it for virtually anything having to do with security on endpoints. Say we have maybe 4,000-plus devices that we have to monitor and upgrade the OSS (Operations Support Systems) and apply patching. This can all be handled with Desktop Central from a central location. That is what makes it a very good option.  

Desktop Central manages pushing upgrades to endpoints and how to securely manage those endpoints. That is how it is most useful.  

The product has several places where there is room for improvement.  

Although it is on the cloud, sometimes the performance is slower than it should be. One of the reasons could be that it is tightly integrated and tight coupled with the rest of the modules and all of them have to be in sync. This syncing takes time and resources. When I go to our Desktop Central console, sometimes it runs slowly. So performance is one place where it could have room for improvement.  

In terms of patching, which is a major benefit of the package, patch management can work even better as well. The vulnerabilities are obvious. Every day we get reports on a lot of new vulnerabilities. It is clear that ManageEngine is doing the patching and the package is easily deployed once they are developed and available. The incident management, the root cause, the planning of the resolution, the service management — all these things are known and available. The team at ManageEngine is good at that. But they do not provide reports to user admins on the development and delivery which is information they already have and admins could use. Once the patch is added to the repository the defense against vulnerabilities improves. But the information about developments and vulnerabilities would be good to have and could be shared more candidly.  

I have been working with Desktop Central since February 2020, so that is about 2 years now.  

The product is constantly being upgraded by the vendor for any known issues with some features or some bugs. That kind of stability issue will always be temporary.  

There can be minor bugs that linger because they are not affecting operational issues, but even these can be escalated for fixing. We can get it fixed through the support and the product team for that. We talk directly to the product team if we feel something is important. It can happen over the phone, or it can happen by email. The entire product team has got different account managers for each of their customers. We can go directly to the team professionals that we need and get a bug fix and get it applied.  

Although Desktop Central is performing well, it sometimes experiences lag because of the resources available. The CPU and memory available might be temporarily low. Desktop Central needs a lot of resources to perform its services and syncing.  

Overall we have not had any serious, lingering issues with stability.  

We have not had any issues overall with any type of scalability. Right now we might have more than 12,000, 15,000-plus users spread across the geography. We can add more.  

All the service management gets taken care of by Desktop Central, which monitors everything. So if you need to expand services you configure this in Desktop Central. There are business KPIs (Key Performance Indicators), so it is KPI driven. How many incidents we are expecting, how much we can scale and all these system variables can be driven by business KPIs.  

Quest Office has a product called Foglight that has been used for quite a long time to order business KPIs. There are two different types of KPIs: the business KPIs, and then the functional or technical KPIs. So those are all integrated with Desktop Central from Foglight.  

We have incident management through Alacrity which is made by a different segment of BMC Software which has also got the product called Remedy. Alacrity is something similar.  

Within Desktop Central there is a production management function that is at the core of the application. When we configure Alacrity to care for incident management or Foglight to manage KPIs, this becomes integrated with the Desktop Central modules.  

We can tightly integrate other applications to the Desktop Central solution and expand out what it oversees and interacts with.  

If the workload increases, we can scale services easily on the cloud or make other plans for enhancing our architecture.  

I am quite satisfied with the customer support. They have bigger support teams available and the routing to the proper people and resources is quite good. They have support out of different cities, so they 'follow the sun' from the perspective of support and the availability is quite good all the time.  

Neutral

VMware was our solution at first. It was a PaaS (Platform as a Service) offering with built-in security and a part of vCloud Air. Workspace ONE was on the top of that. It was the first real desktop virtualization. Like Citrix, it gives you VDI (Virtual Desktop Infrastructure). With that, VMs can easily be managed through Workspace ONE and integrated VDIs.  

If I already have VMware and vSphere as my core backbone for the virtualization strategy in the organization, I might also look at automation for deploying updates. If I have a containerized application that is not automated, I can build in the automation using the DevSecOps pipeline or I can look for another solution. If you want to do the DevSecOps pipeline in the VMware workspace, you can do that with vRealize automation.  

VMware, compared to Desktop Central, is far more expensive. Desktop Central has got a license and pricing advantage similar to your windows update and Windows WUSP (Windows Update Services: Client-Server Protocol). That is your Windows update platform. With Desktop Central, you pay something similar to that. It is only a few dollars per license per user.  

Switching to Desktop Central was a matter of having an opportunity to make a switch, keeping aware of the developments in the technology and on the market, and moving to a product that was cheaper and had the capabilities that we needed to carry out the task.   

Our process and roll out for doing the setups are pretty easy. We have managed to gain familiarity with the product and created a pretty smooth process for the installations.  

I have installed a lot of modules by myself, like EDI Manager, and I even installed Desktop Central. We run tests until we are satisfied that these two modules are installed correctly and this usually does not take much time.  

We do not necessarily handle the setup and deployment totally by ourselves. We stay connected to the managing and support team. There are different product teams within the managing team. There is one for EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) Manager, there is one for Desktop Central, there is another one for the service management. There are many different parts at the support team level. Most of the installations do not require assistance but we can consult support when required. They will help us cope with any sticking point and we can move on from there.

Desktop Central can be less expensive than other solutions like VMware for managing DevSecOps. You have to pay per asset with Desktop Central and the final cost depends on how many assets you have across the organization. Per asset, the license cost will be less than using a more expensive license for VMware and vRealize. I think per desktop it might be somewhere around $50 or $100 each using ManageEngine.  

This is the only product I have in mind for this type of solution currently, although we have not evaluated Sophos yet. After that, there is only Citrix and VM Workspace ONE. Citrix is the oldest vendor we have had since Citrix MetaFrame Presentations Server days. At that time they were using screen sharing on desktops, RDPs (Remote Desktop Protocol), and still using all those older technologies. So that is too old as a solution. Desktop Central is doing much better things and has advanced well beyond that solution.  

My advice to people looking into this solution is that if you want to improve on the patching processes as a part of a DevSecOps pipeline, Desktop Central can help you do that. It will help you make that workflow easier and it is a better option than other solutions. So this works out to be a better because everything is built-in. You do not have to integrate with any other company's portal or any other incident management or tracking.  

If you plan for a patch, there are different tools to use, different notifications to set for the patch, and they can be administered within Desktop Central itself. So the admin can approve it and once the notification changes, the patch can be released to the endpoints. That works pretty fast. That built-in workflow makes it more productive and easier to use.  

On a scale from one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Desktop Central higher than the VMware and Citrix Workspaces. The workflows are much better and easier, and the different roles for IT and Ops are well defined. So I would rate somewhere around seven.  

It is a seven because it still has got some room for improvement, but I think seven is good.  

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. 

Endpoint Central is for managing everything, including desktops, laptops, workstation servers, implementing software, and OS deployment. Mobile Device Manager is also included in some editions. There is software deployment, document sharing, remote control, and patching. The Endpoint solution is a complete solution for patching, management reports, Mobile Device Manager, OS patch, OS deployment, and complete endpoint management.

We are a partner of ManageEngine, and we install their solutions for our customers.

From the point of my customers, there is a need for fewer people in the company to manage things. We do not need four or five workers on Endpoint Central. 

Our customers are very satisfied as it simplified their endpoint management, their patching solutions, and is an all-in-the-one web interface control.

They recently included a feature for endpoint security for hard endpoints and offer cord blocking, for example. Also, the fact that you can manage from the same platform, desktops, laptops, mobile devices, et cetera, is great. It simplifies management. The software deployment for remote patching is helpful.

I don't know if it's ManageEngine fault or not. However, most of their agents that are being used for scanning endpoints and implementing software, and getting interaction from the ManageEngine platform are usually blocked by default by Windows Defender or other security products. Users may run into conflicts with other antivirus or firewall solutions. It requires manual intervention so that users do not receive false positives. You need to manually tell some systems, "this agent is not malware, don't block it."

It might be helpful if they offered a simpler way to use the OS deployment function. It's a bit complicated for most of the customers. You have to take some time and create a customized image. Maybe if they had a repository where you can store a Windows image and auto-deploy it, with not so many parameters on how to deploy it, or where to deploy it would be easier. It's overcomplicated for what it is used for.

I've used the solution for almost a decade since it was Desktop Central. Desktop Central's name was changed last year to Endpoint Central.

The stability is great. I'd rate it ten out of ten. I've never had it crash before. 

It may be slow upload to the web interface sometimes, however, in terms of crashing, only the computer or virtual machine would crash.

The solution scales very well. I'd rate it ten out of ten. We can go to almost 60,000 endpoints, and I'm not sure if you would need more. In Romania, we don't have overly large companies

We've worked with support in the past. We have a partnership with them, so we are in contact often. If maybe a customer wants another feature or wants something else done differently, we're in contact with support to help facilitate that.

We have not used a different solution. We only deployed this kind of environment for managing endpoints. Endpoint Central, we consider a good price for the features we get and it scales very well, so we only recommend Endpoint Central, or different editions maybe. It's great for the customer. 

The implementation is pretty simple. I'd rate it nine out of ten for ease of deployment. The only issue is the firewalls and antiviruses need to be manually told what it is. You simply need to install the console and the agents, and everything mostly goes like clockwork. 

Most clients require on-premises installations as they are big entities and have their own hardware and prefer to have everything on-prem. 

How long it takes to deploy everything is very subjective. For example, maybe if a customer just wants an installation. Getting the agent working can take maybe between a couple of hours to maybe a day or two. If you want customizations of policies, software uploads, et cetera, that depends on human intervention and coordination, and that can take four months. However, installing the solution is straightforward. It only takes a couple of hours to one day.

Usually, it only takes two people to handle an implementation. We just need one person that installs and one that checks on an endpoint to see if the agent started working. If it started working, then we replicate the process at scale for the entire organization.

We can install the solution for our customers and do not need the assistance of third parties during implementation.

We have definitely witnessed an ROI.

ManageEngine solutions are very affordable compared to other endpoint management options, like Ivanti or Microsoft. I was looking at VMware Workspace ONE. We compared to features and price and found this product to be one of the most affordable. In a straight race, ManageEngine will win in terms of pricing.

There may be extra costs on occasion. For example, if you purchase Endpoint Central Unified Edition, most of what you only need to pay for is a trial over the server or an add-on so that you have a passive machine that will wake up if the main machine dies. You might also have an endpoint security add-on. If you buy a standard, you have to pay for the add-on. If you want mobile development, you pay for mobile development. Therefore, the cost depends on the edition you're purchasing.

I have looked into VM Workspace ONE in order to compare features with this product.

We're an ManageEngine partner. 

I'm likely using version 13. It would be the version they released last year that we are working with. 

It's the best product. It's a solution that has all the features you will ever need to manage all the endpoints in your company. It has everything you will imagine, and it's simple to manage, it's simple to install, and once you install it, it will work on its own, and you can reduce the manpower required. You may have needed ten administrators before, yet, with this, now you only will use two due to the automated remote control software pushing and patching. All can be done on a single console remotely. You reduce the workload and free up people.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten based on its many features and its low learning curve. You can become a good admin within a month or two just by using it and checking the menus. 

I'm a system admin and network engineer.

I've found the solution to be user-friendly for us in the IT department and for our employees. Raising a ticket is pretty much effortless and getting it to the next level is also simple. The entire package is quite flawless. The functionality, the basic elements and the help aspect are all fine.

The user interface could be improved because it's quite hardware based. There are no dynamic changes on web pages and it's lacking visually. 

I've been using this solution for six months. 

The solution is stable. I haven't found any crashes or abnormalities in the program.

We haven't fully tested scalability. For now our users include three IT people and 105 employees.

We haven't needed any support but I think everything is available on YouTube.

The initial setup was straightforward and took maybe half an hour. I found some useful tips on YouTube.

We've only tested the help desk aspect to date. From that perspective I would definitely recommend it. We've been testing ManageEngine for the past six months and we'll continue that for a while longer. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

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.

Our main use case, the core function we are using it for, is Patch Management. We download the patches from the database in the Desktop Central server, then we test the patches in our system and push those patches on the server, Microsoft server and Windows, user machines.

Inventory Management, Managing Index of Central, was the second main function that we were using to maintain all the records of our servers, laptops, and all the other devices, like Cisco devices and other things on our network. We manage all of our assets through Central.

We have directory information using User Management, where we sync all users from the Active Directory to Desktop Central to give access to the users.

We did not use Mobile Device Manager, MDM.

The first benefit that we use Desktop Central for is this: In our audit reports, we have to compile a list of all the vulnerable systems and determine which are healthy systems and which are vulnerable and highly nervous systems. On a quarterly basis, we have to make sure that all the systems are healthy. We categorize all the highly vulnerable systems and install the patches on those using Desktop Central. 

Patch Management is the most valuable feature of Desktop Central. We have all the information on the patches we are going to push on the systems and which patches are not installed on the server. We know which servers or Windows machines or Linux machines are highly vulnerable. We categorize the machines so if there are any issues on one of the machines, we just take care of those specific machines which are highly vulnerable and take care of the patches which are not installed on those machines. 

Inventory is also a very good feature of Desktop Central. We don't need to manage all the inventories manually. We just install the Managing Desktop Central agent in all the systems, put down the report request, and download all the reports to share with management. 

There are many features that we use from Desktop Central, but Inventory Management is a solid feature, and Patch Management is a solid feature.

One area that could be improved with the solution would be integrations. Sometimes it happens that the agent got corrupted on the systems, and we have to manually uninstall and push it to the systems again. Also, ManageEngine does not recognize systems that are not on our network. For example, one of our employees in another city did not connect his or her laptop to the system for a few months, or just connected to the internet and did not connect to our VPN, so the agent got corrupted or disconnected from our ManageEngine. Then we have to manually ask them to connect to the network. Then we push all the updates.

That's the only issue we really face with Desktop Central. So if somehow we could connect it through the internet, that would be a great improvement. Right now, if a user is not connected to the VPN or the network and he's outside the country or city, and when he just connects the internet, ManageEngine does not connect to communicate with our server. 

Regarding additional features, I had created a lot of tickets for feature enhancement, things which were not available in Desktop Central previously, but were noted by the team, developed by the Desktop Central team, and published. For the last year and a half, and I haven't opened any tickets or seen any additional requirements from our side. Desktop Central is very good software.

I worked with this solution for about five years. I have had a great experience with Desktop Central, and I have great knowledge of this product. Five years of experience for one product is sufficient to learn the things under the product.

The performance of Desktop Central is nice. We don't need any high-end servers for Desktop Central; we just install it on a VM, Virtual Machine, the database, gigs, memory, and a few hard discs, and we don't need any high-end CPUs for the Desktop Central support. The performance is good, and it doesn't require any high-end processor.

The solution is definitely scalable. Once you are working on a virtualization environment, it's very simple to scale any product. We can enhance the memory and the processor of the servers.

We have around 400 or 500 client machines using the solution, and I was the person managing it for the last five years. In the last three months, my colleague has now been taking care of managing Desktop Central.

Customer support was great. They were helpful and always responded to my queries, and they help really quickly. I'm very happy with the Desktop Central support team.

I created a lot of tickets for support and new features. They promptly responded and took care of those issues and how to resolve them. If I don't know how to perform the step, they always send detailed documentation or detailed steps to perform those tasks. The technical support is good. 

One thing that could be improved is documentation. For example, with Atlassian Jira and Confluence, their documentation is very strong. Desktop Central could improve the documentation so we don't need to create the support requests first; we just go to the documentation, and it should be very simple in words so everyone who is not technical or doesn't have the in-depth knowledge of Desktop Central can easily read and perform those steps. 

The initial setup of the solution is simple. We have a server on which we set up the Desktop Central server, and we synchronize our active directory with it. Then we push the agents in, on the OUs, and then on all the system got pushed. It only takes a few hours for the initial setup from scratch. 

The upgrade process is also very simple. We just bring down the system, get the update downloaded to the server, post it on the server, install it, and bring the server up. So that's great, and the agent always upgrades on the systems as well, once the server is upgraded. The upgrades only take a few minutes.

The validation process is quite long because we have to make sure that it upgrades all the agents on all the client machines. The validation is a lengthy process just to make sure that all the systems are upgraded on the new version of the agent. But the overall process is not very long.

I did the deployment of the solution on my own. I always upgrade the server myself, and I was the person who was managing the Desktop Central server and managing the Desktop Service Desk on my own.

The pricing is fine. We purchase a one year agreement and one year support with Desktop Central for 500 users, and the price was fine. We were not charged for any additional costs, except the licensing.

I've recommended this product to a few of my colleagues in different companies because I was admiring this product when we need to make sure that all the systems are healthy and patches are installed. It's a very user-friendly product, and anyone can use this product.

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.