ManageEngine Endpoint Central Reviews

We use ManageEngine Endpoint Central for endpoint management.

Page management and ADA integrations are the most valuable features of ManageEngine Endpoint Central.

ManageEngine Endpoint Central’s scalability could be improved.

ManageEngine Endpoint Central is a stable product. I rate ManageEngine Endpoint Central ten out of ten for stability.

I rate ManageEngine Endpoint Central an eight out of ten for scalability. Currently, we have 10 machines running the solution in our organization.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

The solution’s deployment took 15 to 20 days.

Compared to other products, ManageEngine Endpoint Central is a very cheap solution.

I recommend ManageEngine Endpoint Central to other users because it is quite easy to deploy.

Overall, I rate ManageEngine Endpoint Central a nine out of ten.

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.

What is valuable for us is the ability to manage Windows OS, Mac OS, and Linux OS on a single console. This also includes push applications, patches, and configurations on all three platforms.

We are able to manage all user operating systems on a single console.

Management of Mac OS X, Linux OS, and encryption. We would like this to be on par with how Windows OS is managed.

Also, the reporting feature could be more flexible.

We have been using the solution for three years.

We had an issue with the reporting feature, but other than this, it's pretty robust.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

The technical support is excellent.

We previously used SCCM and ARD. Cost was a big factor. Just the ability to manage all operating systems on a single console was the main reason we chose this solution. Ease of use for the administration was also a big factor.

The setup was straightforward.

We evaluated Jamf, Lansweeper, TriActive, FileWave, etc.

Look for something that will fit your environment, budget, and level of expertise. For us, we manage all OSs. This was a perfect fit.

We also have 5000 endpoints. ManageEngine allows us to manage these endpoints at a fraction of the cost.

Our IT administrators are also able to use the product without much complication compared to other competitors.

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.

I value the remote deployment solution the most as that functionality is used daily. However, other parts of the software like patch management, inventory and client/user configurations are also highly regarded.

It changed the entire flow of my department, though it is not a large department ranging from 55 to 75 users and about 130 clients (which includes lab and student PCs). I was able to save one full time employee and, thus, the software allowed me to present a serious cost reduction to the department staff.

I would love to have the self-service portal which is now present in the Enterprise edition to be deployed to the users of the Professional edition as well.

I implemented Desktop Central in spring 2009 and have used it ever since.

The response from the technical support staff was great whenever I needed it. They are also open to suggestions from the community and now and then implement ideas offered by the community.

We previously had a full time employee running around to install software when demanded.

It's straightforward. Between setup, testing and deployment of my first software package there was half a day. Since I have been running Desktop Central for six years. People looking for an easy management tool without steep learning curve like MS System Center should definitely have a look at Desktop Central.

We deployed in-house and have no additional remarks about implementation.

We have saved one full time employee.

We get Academic licensing which is not representative for the majority of users.

People looking for an easy management tool without steep learning curve like MS System Center should definitely have a look at Desktop Central.

• Patch Management
• Software Licensing
• Asset Management
• Reporting
• Mobile Device Management
• Remote Control

Patch management was being done manually and as a result many workstations and servers were lacking current critical/important security updates and OS fixes. With the implementation of Desktop Central's patch management functionality, it is now a more streamlined and automated process with the use of deployment schedules aligned with Patch Tuesday from Microsoft. In three months over 1000 critical/important updates were applied to over 1500 workstations/servers using this tool.

It would be helpful to add image management to this tool.

We had no issues deploying it.

There have been no instability issues.

It's scaled just fine.

Don't use it with Internet Explorer, as it's glitchy. Chrome or FireFox work best.

We primarily use the solution to run on all the desktops in our company. We have unique requirements, and this was the only solution that really met them.

The easy application deployment allows you to use the solution directly.

The solution works very well. It offers excellent performance.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

We find the solution to be pretty stable.

The product can scale well if you need it to.

The pricing of the solution could be better.

The solution should be better at integrating with other solutions. Right now, it's not the best.

I've been using the solution for 12 months. It's been about a year at this point.

The stability is excellent. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's quite good.

The solution can scale quite well. We haven't had issues. If a company wants to expand, it can do so with relative ease.

We have about 15 individuals using the solution.

Although we don't have current plans to increase usage, we might do so in the future.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten in terms of support. They do offer support in Portuguese, which is helpful, however, it could be a bit better.

We used to use a local solution provided by us, however, it was too expensive to maintain. That is the reason we switched to this product.

We did not find the initial implementation to be complex. It was straightforward and simple. If a company needs to implement it themselves, they shouldn't have any problems doing so.

For our organization, the implementation took about three weeks.

You only need one person to handle maintenance. In my organization, that is me.

We did not use an implementor or reseller to help us with the implementation process. We handled the entire setup in-house ourselves.

I'd rate the cost at a seven out of ten. It's okay. It could be a bit more affordable, however, it's not too expensive.

We pay about $250 a year for our license.

We did not evaluate other solutions before settling on this product. It was the only one we considered and looked at.

We are just a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with the product.

We are using the latest version of the solution. I'm not sure which version number we have.

In general, I would recommend the solution. I'd rate it nine out of ten overall, however, I hope that in the future, they improve their integration capabilities.

My primary use case of this solution is to monitor software installs. 

ManageEngine has improved my organization because right now we can actually monitor and find out which software products are installed on each desktop. We can then figure out which ones have to get patched and so forth.

We haven't used all the features. The parts that we're using are pretty good. I would like to see them include the ability to find out the network usage but I believe that might be a feature of it already.

It's fairly stable. Since I've been here working with the company we haven't had any issues with it. 

Scalability is very good. We've got about 100 desktops we're managing at the moment. We require two people for maintenance.

We haven't had to contact their technical support. So far this solution is working well and doing what it's supposed to do.

It's a very good product and I would suggest it to someone considering it. It's been working very well. Since it's been running I don't think we've ever had any issues with it. I would rate it a ten out of ten.