ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus Reviews

We use the solution for patching vulnerabilities. 

You can create remote sessions for client systems. 

The tool's support needs improvement. 

I have been using the product for more than three years. 

I rate ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus a nine out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. 

The tool's deployment is easy. It takes one to two hours. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

The usage primarily depends on the customer requirements and we deploy it accordingly. 

The fetch repository is a good feature. 

The cloud version should have the option to add all the endpoints using the agent. Not only for Windows but also the Linux version. There are some versions that are not compatible with SaaS Manager. Some customers do not want to use the latest version of the latest Linux version of CentOS. 

I have been using ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus for four years. 

The solution is highly stable. I rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It is a scalable product. We have five hundred users using the solution. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Patch Manager is cost-effective. 

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

Our primary use case for this solution is patching end-user systems. These can be mobile devices, PCs, desktops, or laptops.

We have been using the patch management component for the past six months, but we have been using more components within ManageEngine for about a year and a half.

We have an on-premises deployment.

The most valuable feature of this solution is centralized management.

It is very easy to use. It requires only a few clicks to download the latest patches and forward them to the endpoints.

This solution supports multiple operating systems and multiple hardware vendors.

There are limitations to this solution when we are working with iOS, Apple laptops or desktops such as the Mac and iMac. All of the features are working with Windows, so they should be working for Mac as well.

We need a better ability to communicate with the end-users using the solution.

The support for this solution needs to be improved. 

This solution is pretty stable.

We use this solution once a day to check to see what packages need to be done. The updates do not happen very frequently.

This is a scalable solution.

Prior to this solution, we used SCCM. We switched because it is very limited to Windows, and for Windows users. Because we also have Mac computers on-site, we need a solution that handles these also.

The deployment took approximately one week.

Two people were involved in the deployment, and we have one administrator who takes care of maintenance.

The end-users need to set up their file-sharing properly, so sometimes we have issues with that before we set it up. It has to be done manually.

We had a third party to assist us with the implementation.

The ROI for this solution is good.

Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and the charge for support is extra.

We evaluated Ivanti SCCM before choosing this solution.

For anybody researching this type of solution, if you need one product for Windows, Mac, and Linux, then this is the best choice.

This solution is very easy to use, and very easy to do the patching. It is important, however, to have it fully compatible with the Mac.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients. We also use it within our own organization.

This solution handles our asset management, patch manage, and mobile device management.

The most valuable features are patch management and mobile device management.

This solution allows us to schedule reports, which works well.

This product integrates well with other solutions.

Automation with this tool is easy to do.

I find the user interface a little bit intimidating and not very appealing. This is something that should be improved.

I have been using ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus for two months.

This is a stable solution.

The scalability is very good. Increasing the count is just a matter of purchasing extra licenses for it.

Technical support is good. Even if you contact them by email, you will receive a reply within one or two hours.

We did not work with a similar solution prior to using ManageEngine.

I did not complete the installation but from what I understand, the initial setup is straightforward and easy to do. It involves installation on the server, as well as the endpoints. It takes approximately one day to do.

The price of this product is reasonable.

At this point, this product satisfies our requirements.

I would recommend this product, although it depends on the requirements. It can be integrated with a lot of other products, too. Ultimately, it depends on how it is that they want to manage their assets.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is basically for patching systems. Instead of patching using SCCM, that's Microsoft's System Center Configuration Manager, we used ManageEngine. The product has agents installed on workstations. Those agents communicate within a central server and pull patches and installs them on the workstations. It's pretty straightforward.

It's easier for us to measure patch compliance now than it was before. That saves us time and guesswork.

The ability to deploy patches seamlessly is the solution's most valuable aspect. It allows us to not only deploy patches but to monitor the deployment of those patches.

It eases the process of patch deployment, and it allows us to easily know what patches are available. We're able to manage our path cycles properly to let us know which systems require a reboot. In some instances, we will know if there is enough storage on the system. The solution also does patching for third-party applications, like an Apache Server. It picks it up and lets you know if there is a patch available for the Apache Server or SQL Server. It's not just OS packages. It also does application packages as well. It's very robust.

The ability to do out of network patching needs to be added to the solution. For example, a lot of people are working from home now. It will take a lot of strength to make sure the patches are applied since the machines aren't technically within our network. If there's a way one can ensure that endpoints outside the corporate environment can be reached and accessed for patching, that would be ideal.

The agent can be a bit more intelligent.

I've been working with the solution for just over a year now.

It's very stable. We have no issue with the cost to build it or to install it and start using it. We have more servers than workstations. 

The solution scales fine. However, it's license based, so once you reach your limit, it will prompt you to procure an extra license for more endpoints. Apart from that, it's pretty scalable.

You also need to have some storage to temporarily hold the downloaded patches, maybe about 500GB depending on the size of the organization. Apart from that, resource utilization isn't so intensive.

We have about seven people using the solution in our company. They are from the security team and from the server admin.

Technical support, so far, has been very responsive. We had an issue once related to adding indexes to patch agents outside of the organization's network. That was the last discussion we had with them. We Just needed some clarifications on how the head server works and what we needed to do to set it up. They were great. We were satisfied with their level of service.

We were previously using Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager, SCCM. It wasn't giving us the kind of reporting we needed. Then the deployment of patches weren't very effective. We needed something else that we could rely on.

The initial setup was not complex at all. It was very straightforward. 

Deployment took just over a week. Within three or four days we were up and running. The server itself took about two or three days to implement. Two days were spent actually setting up the server. After that, we just had to install and configure everything. Then we deployed agents to workstations and that took about three, four days. It was a week or so in total, from beginning to end.

About five people were involved in the deployment process, including support from the local team. Three people, who were server administrators, from my organization and two people from the local support team were involved.

There aren't really extra costs involved beyond licensing. 

We're just customers. We aren't resellers or consultants.

I don't know what the exact version of the solution we are using is, however it is the latest one.

The solution is definitely something a company should try. It's a better alternative to the traditional SCCM. Compared to other security products, it's not expensive.

It's a great solution. It works quite well.

I would give it a rating of eight out of ten. It does what it mentions it will do and it does very well.