Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

We use Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for application deployment, patch deployment, and many other things. If you have any script that needs to be deployed to all the devices, you can do it with this solution. 

If you have this solution in your environment, it's a win-win situation. You can deliver anything that the customer requires. If the efficacy is somewhere around 80 to 90%, everything isn't well because some devices aren't coming online because of bandwidth issues or they aren't compliant. 

However, if we have 80% to 90% efficacy, we can achieve compliance. The compliance we reached was around 95%, but that 5% was probably due to a decommissioned device or one that wasn't in the environment. So, for efficacy, delivery, and reporting, this is one of the best tools.

The major features of this product are the reporting tools. The most valuable features are package deployment and application deployment. Security management is also good because any vulnerability will be identified, and you can fix it. It's the best tool because you never know what kind of client you will have. For example, you may have your offices in low bandwidth remote areas. But it's achievable because it accommodates the bandwidth that you have available.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is an excellent reporting tool for your environment. If you want to know the details about the hardware configuration, software configuration, what is causing a problem, or when a new feature update comes in for Windows, even that goes on SCCM itself. A lot of deployment stuff.

It would be better if reporting were more user-friendly. I would like to see an upgrade in the reporting structure in the next release. At the moment, you have to use an SQL query or configure it to pull reports through the graphical user interface. 

Their updates could be more regular. I think Mircosoft updates it every six months. They are also moving many things to Intune, and Microsoft decided to move the deployment solution there. I think SCCM is getting old, and Intune is new. 

I have been working with Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for about seven years.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is very stable. It's very reliable, and it's a proven product.

Scalability is difficult for the inexperienced. But if you know how to use these tools, scalability is also good. When Intune matures, you can also use it together with Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager to scale and co-manage the environment.

Microsoft support is good, but it does take time. There are two types of support provided by Microsoft, paid and unpaid. The paid option offers a real-time system, and they help because we have to pay in dollars. Sometimes it takes two or three days to get to the submission. I cannot comment much because we only had a few cases and had to connect with them. Usually, these issues are related to some upgrades and some tool-related issues. Although it's good, I think Microsoft support could be better because they still take too much time.

The deployment process is very simple. It's not difficult because it gives you a variety of features. You have to create a collection or a group, and you deploy it. It's very slow and dependent on the network. 

A single person can install and deploy this solution. If you have an application already created and tested, that's fine. If you do not have one, then you have to build the application and test it. If everything goes fine, you can simply deploy it to the list of people you want to target. I wouldn't say that you need many people, but it depends on your operation and how you manage your environment.

The deployment time depends on the location it's going to, the bandwidth, and more. You can configure a time for the application to replace the policy or when the machine will replace its policies in the configuration settings. Suppose I'm an administrator and deploying something on your device; your machine will not get turned on. I will go ahead and update the application evolution cycle and machine policies so that it happens automatically. Once the 30 minutes clock starts, it'll update, and once it refreshes, it will see something I sent, and it'll start downloading it. 

Downloading is always completely dependent on how fast your internet is. Once the package is downloaded, you can simply go ahead and install it. Small packages will take about an hour at most to deploy. For bigger packages, it's completely dependent on the internet because this tool does only one job. It's like a postman as it takes one thing from you and gives it to the other person.

There are periodic updates, and the maintenance is also done. The patch update service is critical and has a significant impact.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is suitable for small businesses. If you have fewer offices and fewer users, then the efficacy of this product is very high. If the company doesn't have a system for a long time or doesn't have many employees or environmental issues, they can open Intune and have a cloud-based solution and get all the features together there.

You can stage your content, and you can share where you have no connectivity. You can go ahead and do the whole deployment and a lot of things. Intune is still improving, but SCCM has a feature of all this deployment and all other things.

So I would say that SCCM has a stronghold and is still relevant. It's an excellent product, but Intune will take it over in a few years. But not entirely because they will coexist. They are working in an environment simultaneously, hand in hand, but I think the market will move more toward Intune (if it's not moving already).

I would advise potential users to take a structural approach. They should know the customer's requirements, the number of users, and the locations. They need to have the setup, create a cache, and then binary and secondary options for these deployments. But if you're using a cloud-based solution, you don't have too much worry about it because everything will come from the internet. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager an eight.

Microsoft has done a good job with authentication solutions, such as single sign-on, or open authentication.

The downside of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is it's an on-premise-based solution. With the pandemic coming on board the need to support users across the globe has increased. For a while, we would use the in-built Microsoft Teams screen sharing feature but the disadvantage of that is you cannot perform privileged access. Microsoft does not give you access to that. That's where you need cloud-based tools, such as BeyondTrust or Freshservice.

There are many aspects of this solution that can be improved, such as security.

The integration could be better with other software packages.

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for approximately three years.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is a stable solution.

Having Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager available only on on-premise creates limitations. If you want the best scalability options then you will have to move to the cloud to a solution such as Microsoft Intune.

We have approximately 1,000 active endpoints using this solution.

Microsoft has a lot of support available for Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager. When we open a support ticket Microsoft solves them in the set out the time frame in the SLA.

We were using other solutions previously.

The installation is not easy. As with most on-premise solutions, they are not easy to install. Microsoft documentation is complicated and goes on and on. It's a lot to try to assimilate the information. With a cloud solution, it makes it a bit easier. However, even with Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager being on-premise with Intune, it's still not straightforward. The time the implementation took for us to complete was a couple of weeks with a five-person team.

In recent times, a lot of companies have begun to move away from Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager. The endpoint configuration is very convoluted to implement. In most companies, you need to have a very large dedicated team to manage the solution on the back end. 

A lot of companies are looking to cost savings. With the advent of cloud solutions, companies have the opportunity to receive a lot of cost savings. There are a lot of ITSM tools that will do asset management for you, change management, converged asset management, and updates. There are other ways to configure updates and deployment. The solution is a bit convoluted and expensive.

The price of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is expensive.

I have a very good idea of what my present workplace pays for this solution because it's usually a mixture of different solutions. For example, if you have an Azure P2 license, it tends to cover Microsoft 365 E5. We have a number of licenses. 

The licensing is typically paid monthly or annually as part of the agreement by the customer.

I would recommend this solution to others if you're an Azure-centric organization. If you have your workloads on Azure and are a Microsoft-based organization. For example, you have Microsoft servers, Microsoft endpoints, Azure workloads, BD VMs, Data Factory, and SQL.

I would advise others to use online help forums instead of Microsoft documentation because they can tend to be complicated and lengthy.

I rate Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager a nine out of ten.

Microsoft Configuration Manager helps with patch management. 

The tool's deployment is difficult. Microsoft needs to improve documentation with videos. 

I have been working with the product for ten years. 

Microsoft Configuration Manager is stable. We have experienced downtime from time to time. 

We use the tool's free license. It is expensive. 

I rate Microsoft Configuration Manager a six out of ten. 

We use this solution for implementing System CenterConfigMgr in our organization, and for standardization.

This has made the management of our environment easier.

The most valuable features of this solution are the OSD and application deployments, and it also automates updates.

Not everything is readily available, and there are a lot of commands that are only executable via PowerShell. In this regard, the user interface could be improved.

This is linked to how Microsoft designs the products: They release a product and a visual interface, but also provide PowerShell commandlets. This usually is in ratio of 30/70 (UI / PowerShell actions).

Microsoft Configuration Manager gives different tools in one solution. 

The tool's deployment is complex and depends on the architecture you want to implement. 

The solution is stable.

The tool is scalable. 

I rate Microsoft Configuration Manager a ten out of ten. 

I am using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for software distribution and patch management.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is the software deployment. Additionally, Microsoft integrates most of the other solutions well with one another.

The support could improve.

I have used Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for approximately five years.

We are utilizing the solution on a regular basis.

I rate the scalability of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager 

The availability of technical support could improve.

I rate the support from Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager as seven out of ten. 

Neutral

I rate the initial setup of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager an eight out of ten.

I rate the price of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager an eight out of ten.

I rate Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for patch management, application deployment and operating system deployment.

It has improved our ability to remediate against critical CVE's in a timely manner across the enterprise.

The patch management is great. The ability to be able to centrally purchase servers is quite useful.

The ability to monitor only after you have rebooted devices allows you to see if they have compliance or not.

The efficiency - as opposed to patching once you have the time - of having a central repository to manage everything you need is very helpful.

The solution is quite stable. 

It's perfect for enterprises.

We have found the scalability to be quite good.

In terms of the monitoring, the timeframe it takes to actually report back on the compliance of a device after it has been patched is a bit too long. That could be better. Sometimes you could be looking at a screen and may take about five to 10 minutes before you get back the actual compliance status and that could be reduced.

Having a cloud solution is better in a lot of ways. For the deployment of the operating system, with InTune and modern end-point management, you no longer have to image machines and waste a lot of hours. You no longer have your technicians spending four, five hours imaging machine sessions for drivers and things like that. You can make use of an autopilot, which reduces resources and can cut down the timeframe drastically. There's a lot of wins with the cloud technology that's coming forward, that enterprises and organizations can make use of.

I've used the solution over the three years. It's been in our organization for the past six years.

It's a very stable product. It is definitely an enterprise-grade patch management solution.

The product is very scalable. When we have migrations and we bring on additional devices, such as during an acquisition of companies, it's great. We can bring them right into our environment. It's very scalable in terms of deploying and adding a new division to the solution. 

Currently, we have it deployed to support over 20,000 PCs.

Likely, we will increase usage. There are also new tools that are modern tools that we are starting to make use of. As much as you're doing something for patch management, where you need to enter the discussion is you need to start looking at modern endpoints, which is InTune, for example. We will start making use of InTune for the patch of end-points. We could also do scheduling of those patches as well from the cloud to the client. We are using, a hybrid approach. Generally, our goal is to expand usage.

In terms of technical support, once you have a Microsoft agreement, the level of support would be the same across all our products. We have an enterprise-grade level of support. Therefore, once I create a critical case, I get support within the hour. We are quite satisfied.

We have had a deployment in our enterprise for more than five years. It's a relatively complex deployment due to the fact that we have a large organization.

I am one of the enterprise engineers. I make deployments happen at a new location and it may just be a matter of training the onsite technician at that new division on how to make use of it. We have an enterprise-grade deployment and we have divisional deployments where divisions can make use of it to still manage their in-house shops.

A consultant would've assisted in the initial deployment.

We do pay a licensing fee on a yearly basis. 

There is a license cost and it is licensed per deployment. We do pay licensing costs for all of the deployments that we have on our end, across the enterprise.

With the way everything is moving to the cloud, you need to have all of these licenses in place.

We're partners with Microsoft.

For people looking into implementing Configuration Manager at this point, I would recommend it. They should also look at InTune, which is more of an endpoint deployment. For the servers, you can still look at what we have, however, just the way, how things are developing, I can see the industry and patch management moving away from on-prem management to more like making use of the cloud and use of our Microsoft for business in terms of managing the updates, ease of updates and things like that. What is happening now is a paradigm shift.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's great for enterprises.

This solution helps to manage different areas. For example, asset inventory and software inventory. You are able to patch products, do software deployment, and software packaging. 

I have found some valuable features to be the built-in reporting tool, the ability to get visibility on your organization, compliance reports, software remitting for all your products in your organization, and the management of all machines in your environment including a new domain and workgroups.

I currently need to increase my compliance level in the patching processes which this solution could improve on. For this purpose, I am looking for another solution to perform more efficiently and to work faster to cover this part specifically.

There should be more visibility to integrate more products other than Microsoft products. For example, Adobe and Google Chrome. You need to do a lot of manual intervention to cover all non-Microsoft products for patching at the moment. There are third parties working on these gaps in this solution. 

I have been using the solution for 12 years.

The solution is stable most of the time.

I have found the solution to be scalable. We have around 50,000 users using the solution.

We were satisfied with the support sometimes. There were occasions when we have had an engineer that was not experienced in the particular problem we encountered to be able to help efficiently. This could be improved by having better-trained engineers.

The specifications for the SCCM and the organizational capacity can make the installation complex otherwise it can be easy.

The deployment took a long time. We required a team system engineer from Microsoft to be allocated with my team to complete any configuration.

We are currently looking for another solution to work in parallel to cover some of the gaps in functionality.

I rate SCCM an eight out of ten.