ManageEngine Endpoint Central Reviews

The solution is implemented in a medium-sized company. We're working with the enterprise edition.

The solution is deployed on-premises and on the cloud.

The patch manager is good and it's easy to use. There's a good learning curve. It's easy to deploy and can be implemented in a short amount of time.

The MDM feature isn't very good. It doesn't support Amazon vendors.

I have used this solution for seven years.

It's stable.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support is very good.

Compared with VMware Workspace, ManageEngine Desktop Central is a better product.

It's easy to set up.

I would rate this solution as 10 out of 10. 

It's stable and there are no bugs. It's a very good solution. 

We are using the solution for desktop support. You can connect to the client machines and do the support for them remotely. You can record the sessions and you can deploy software. We use it to install operating systems. It's basically a desktop support solution.

The product makes it very easy to connect to clients. Normally, with all the tools I try, many have been messy when connecting with the client. With DesktopCentral, it's really easy. 

Normally, you can install the software and you are ready to run when you install the agent in the client. It's very easy to install on the clients' machines as you can connect with the active directory and deploy it automatically.

The initial setup is very simple.

The stability is very good.

The product tends to have some glitches in terms of connection when you have two connections to the same machine. For example, you have the internet cable connected to your PC, and you are connected to the WiFi. The client gets confused about that and loses the connection with the client a lot of the time if you don't deactivate one of them.

They should make it easier to deploy in the clients. 

Improvement of the chats on the web communication through the WAN would be helpful.

I've used the solution at this company for two years. In my last job, maybe I use it for four years approximately.

The product is very stable. Normally, I do the updates. I never have a problem or have to make a solution for coming back after a shutdown. It's reliable. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It's my understanding that the scalability is good. I don't have a cluster right now, however, from what I see, it's going to be easy to set up. In the option of the platform, you have an assistant to make a cluster and make your implementation bigger. That said, I didn't try it yet.

I have five technical users and I have 200 clients.

I don't have plans to have more clients or increase usage as the size of the company is finite. However, I will likely acquire more products from ManageEngine.

The initial implementation process was very simple. I even installed it myself. 

I didn't need support or a consultant to do the setup. I handled it myself and was very, very simple.

We pay licensing fees on a yearly basis. 

We have the aggregate fees for a few things, however, for the most part, it's all under one license fee. There aren't added costs.

We are partners. 

The advice I can give to people looking to implement this solution is to read all the information they have on the website as all the steps to handle the implementation is there. It is very easy to read and it's very accessible on their site. You don't need to look for other site guides or any other tutorials as everything you need is right there on their website.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I've been pretty happy with the product in general.

With that solution, we can push patches out. We can deploy software, and it tracks our inventory. We can do OS deployment with it. That's about all that we use it for right now.

The patch management aspect of the solution is the most valuable part for us.

Overall, our experience has not been good.

In terms of the software itself, it's just kind of hit or miss as to whether or not it works. I've had to spend a lot of time with their port trying to get to work.

Technical support is not reliable. 

The solution isn't fully stable, and, when it goes down, it's hard to get it up and running.

The initial setup is complicated.

I've been using the solution for five or so years. It's been a while. 

I wouldn't say that it's stable. We've just had problems. Due to the fact that it's pretty complicated, to me anyway, and then when it does go down, it takes a while to get it working again.

The technical support, like the software, is hit or miss. Sometimes it takes a long time to get anything done. We would prefer it if they were more reliable. We're not satisfied with the level of service we get.

The initial setup is rather complex. It's not really straightforward. 

I can't speak to their exact pricing. I don't have any information on that.

We are customers and end-users.

From Manage Engine, we're using just the Desktop Central and the Log 360. Desktop Central does not happen to be the MSP.

We are using version 10.1.2119.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend the solution to others. I would advise users to keep looking into other options.

I'd rate the solution at a four out of ten. We haven't been very happy overall.

Secure USB has allowed us to secure USB ports on our PCs, thus improving our PSN compliance. The main selling point is that it's centralized. We can easily control which system should have access to what and we’re also able to produce a report in case of a security issue.

Patch Management provides us with the ability to patch third-party software on terminal servers. This has improved productivity in terms of being able to automate the process as well as targeting the rights OUs, Security Groups, etc. I have successfully decommissioned my WSUS server and now all Microsoft updates are performed using the “Automate Patch Deployment”.

“Deployment Policy”: It provides me with the ability to schedule server/non-server reboots. This has, for the time being, been the solution for a Microsoft bug for server 2012 R2 whereby a server does not properly reboot after MS updates been applied and forcefully does it when the user logs on instead.

I no longer have to use a dedicated WSUS server, everything is properly scheduled including the ability to get reports via e-mail. Everything is administered using a web interface. It’s an all-in-one solution not just for patches but for software inventories as well. From a sys admin point of view, it now requires less effort and time to perform these administrative tasks.

I would like the deployment window time to be reduced as it currently requires a minimum of three hours. The automated patch deployment should stick to its own schedule.

The web interface is sometimes confusing and requires improvement, meaning it should be easy to find your way round if you’re looking for a specific option, i.e. adding a new computer object.

Some help files aren’t helpful as they don’t clearly explain the tasks to follow. There should be videos or more scenarios to assist the user.

I've used it for less than a year.

At first it took me some time to understand how to automate the patches, especially the “deployment window time”, other than that everything becomes straightforward once you've spent “some time” learning the process.

None

No

4/10. Symantec, for instance, has better business support as you can log in for follow ups. It takes time for your call to be answered; you don’t know what your SLA is; you don’t get a quick reply. It’s basically not there yet.

For Windows updates we used WSUS. With MangeEngine it’s so much easier to administer and monitor. We struggled to update 3rd party applications in the past. Software deployment is also not an issue anymore and easily manageable.

I wasn't involved in it.

In-house. My recommendation would be to export all your computer objects, in .csv format for instance, from AD then import into ManageEngine. It would be simple and shorten the amount of time it would’ve taken, otherwise, to manually add each object and subsequently ease the process of deploying the agents to each object.

With Secure USB, the system relies on the Device Instance ID of the USB device to identify and secure it (Allow, Deny). For implementation, my advice would be to “Deny all USB access” in order to allow access to devices only permitted by the organisation when plugged in.

The “Device Instance ID” is a unique, long string, alphanumerical identifier. To allow access to a specific device you’ll need to copy/paste this ID (from Device Manager) into ManageEngine. Let’s say you now have 20 IDs listed, how would you know which ID is for which device, as ManageEngine does not provide such option. I ended up creating a spreadsheet which records such information. That’s quite a convoluted way of doing things.

A USB Device can have multiple “Device Instance Id”: i.e. Digital camera. That means sometimes it becomes a hit and miss to get the device to work.

The features that give us the most value are patch management, remote control, and configuration management.

We used to use Windows Server Update Services, but had difficulty getting reports that gave an accurate picture of the patch situation across the estate. 

Desktop Central allows both Microsoft and third-party patching while giving precise reporting and dashboards, enabling us to catch problem computers easily, as well as show the company that we are keeping their IT infrastructure safe.

The ability to backup and restore or move user profiles to another PC would be a fantastic addition to the feature set.

We have used this solution for five years now.

We've had no issues with deployment.

We've had no issues with stability.

We've had no issues with scalability.

I have found customer service to be very responsive. I have had a couple of issues over the years and on one occasion logged a ticket on the ManageEngine support site and had a call back within 15 minutes. The support rep took control of the server and fixed the issue within 10 minutes. 

They are also very responsive as far as feature requests are concerned. I have in the past requested features and have had at least some of them make it into the product.

We used Altiris for our service desk, as well as systems management, before it became Symantec. It was a very good but expensive solution. 

I was tasked with finding a replacement for the cost of the maintenance of Altiris. I did that with the combination of ServiceDesk Plus, Desktop Central and OS Deployer.

Installation and initial configuration is very easy, taking less than an hour to have a fully-working system on a network of 700+ computers. Obviously, it takes more time to fine tune the solution to your exact needs, but you can have an installation ready and auditing your estate in no time at all. I would say that any reasonably competent IT person can set this up with no outside help. The installation was very easy and required no help from any outside company including ManageEngine.

I did it by myself in-house.

Not sure if it is the case now, but they used to say 80% of the features of the big players for 20% of the cost. I think that they may be overlooked because of the price, but download it and take a look. You will be very surprised.

Give it a go. If you are a small business of less than 25 users, it is free. For larger companies, it is a very reasonably priced solution. It is feature rich and the list of features is growing rapidly. Depending on the version you have, new features are free of charge. Some features are only in Enterprise and not in Pro.

I like that we can manage everything totally in one dashboard. We can install software easily. Anyone can handle the installation. It's got good documentation. 

The setup is pretty simple. 

It's scalable. 

The technical communication needs to be better. They need better technical support.

The solution is expensive. 

I've been using the solution for one to two months. 

The product is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. I'd rate the stability eight or nine out of ten based on its reliability.

It is scalable. It is simple to expand. I'd rate its ability to scale eight out of ten. 

Technical support has not been great. I haven't been pleased with their ability to assist when we need help. That said, there are some technicians that are good if you can get a hold of them.

Negative

It is easy to set up the solution. I'd rate the ease of implementation nine out of ten. It is not overly complex. 

It is a pretty expensive solution. With one being cheap and ten being expensive, I'd rate the affordability at a nine out of ten. Compared to other products, it costs a lot. 

I'm a customer and end user. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I'm pretty happy with its capabilities. 

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.

The automation control over scheduling server patching along with the ability to automate the reboot time has been critical. This process isn't straightforward, but after figuring out the requirements staggering reboots is an easy process to manage.

The software has provided the ability for us to not only replace SCCM seamlessly, but to train and allow for easy cross training.

The way patches are pushed out and applied can use a little work as it appears the patches are pushed out and just force applied as a group, as opposed to a specific registry pattern. Not too often, but this causes servers lockup or fail patching as it halts reboots before other patches can be applied which cannot be applied because the registry is locked from previous patches applied.

This software has been in place coming up on a year now. The flexibility of the software has proven very useful. A small business perspective replacing SCCM with this product has proven both cost effective and an efficient use of our staffs time.

We have had no issues deploying it.

There have been no stability issues.

Overall once we figured out the process structure we really did not have a whole lot of issues. From our client base, and architecture I do not see anything that would hinder scalability based on the way the remote offices are setup within this code.

I would preface this by saying in general the FAQ's are pretty helpful. Overall the support system has been helpful for this specific product, but we have not needed a whole lot of assistance.

We previously used SCCM which is a great enterprise solution if you can keep the administration knowledge on-site. For a small business, SCCM did not meet the ease of use or the price break which was the reasoning for the move to Desktop Manager MSP 9.

The installation of the product itself was very straightforward. The installer was pretty much default settings all the way through and was able to reference FAQ's for the few custom settings we desired.

Implementation was done in-house and for the most part was straightforward. Once the client setup process is done I would suggest babysitting the automated pushes for a couple of weeks. We ran into some weird issues that we were able to resolve fairly quickly and completed the maintenance during our timeframe which otherwise would have just looked like the patching jobs failed completely when they succeeded in reality.

The ROI switching to this product was noticeable after it had been around six months as we were able to retire our SCCM product along with the licensing that comes with using SQL.

I like the ease of setup and administration. There are some minor annoyances with how often the server software needs patched, how patching is applied and how the terminologies are translated.

Keep an eye on the automated reporting that is generated. We have not fully invested the time to discover why we have inconsistencies with the data, but it appears to be happening.