Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

Our primary use case of this product is for infrastructure, capturing all the configuration items within our infrastructure. I'm the configuration manager and we are customers of SCCM. 

I like that this solution captures all the devices in our infrastructure, quickly identifying those items based upon everything we've identified within the SCCM, as far as the proper nomenclature goes. Other things along those lines like serial numbers, and the location of things, it's all good stuff. The solution does exactly what it needs to do and in terms of being on the ITSM side of the house it just feeds into it. 

I'd like to see some cosmetic improvements on the user interface. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

This solution definitely does what it's supposed to do. 

Microsoft does a good job as far as putting information out there for anyone to train themselves, especially if it's within their Microsoft Virtual Academy. I don't deal with the administrative side of the house, but we have Microsoft system engineers we can contact if we need. The support is sufficient, very responsive and easy to work with.

The initial setup was straightforward and took around five hours. It was carried out by the two administrators in the company. We also have people on the team who are familiar with SCCM.

I don't know much about the licensing structure but I believe everything is probably included within the package.

It's important to be aware of the capabilities of the software and all that it says it's designed to do, and to make sure that you educate yourself on the use of the software. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

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 mostly use Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for patch management and application deployment. We will check and post a critical or supplement patch if there is a vulnerability.

I like Mircosoft's technical support. Microsoft has a few updates, like some of the critical KBs. They are published within the interval time, and in case of an escalation on the client missions, we will raise a ticket with the Microsoft team. They will create a hotfix or a critical update. They will chat with us, and that is one thing I like about Microsoft. Whenever any issues occur at my organization, they will help you out soon as possible within the SLA.

It would be better if automation options were available. For example, in Nexthink or SysTrack, there is an analytical tool. Creating dashboards would be very easy if you implement the same thing in Microsoft. That report will be a daily cost to the customers and good revenue for our organization. The price also could be better.

In the next release, we need to include some features like tables, dashboards, surveys, services, and metrics in the dashboard. Whatever we are implementing will be downloaded by a report. Apart from the report, we will telecast from the dashboard. It's very easy to compare, and it will be easy to telecast to the end-users.

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for five years.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is a stable solution. There is nothing to worry about. When Microsoft pushes updates or patches, they will be in the W-Sync server. We have some people who will concentrate on Sync's parameters. Apart from that, everything is perfect.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is a scalable solution.

From my point of view, I'm just giving 60% to 70% marks to those who support us with these issues. If there are any new issues, they will check in with the corresponding team, which takes some time. If there are issues with a single machine or server, or it affects the whole environment, they will analyze it from their end and provide a hotfix.

On a scale from one to five, I would give Microsoft technical support a four.

Positive

I would tell potential users that for 15,000 or 30,000 machines, you must go with Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager as it's the best tool. We can install the clients on all the end-user machines. All the data will be recorded in the Microsoft console itself. There's no need to worry if the patching activities will be hygienic, which will be very useful. 

You can go with another third-party software if you're just a small organization with 50-odd machines. The Microsoft license cost is relatively high, but everything will be perfect, stable, and reliable.

The initial setup is straightforward because Microsoft is always user-friendly. They will share the parameters, like troubleshooting steps and the pre-request. They will send the database knowledge-base document to us. It will be a step-by-step procedure. There won't be any worrying or alarming issues with Microsoft. If we have any problems, we will raise a ticket with Microsoft, and the team from Microsoft will help us. We can implement this solution within two or three hours, depending on the bandwidth speed.

On a scale from one to five, I will give the initial setup a four.

We implemented this solution.

The price could be better.

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

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.