We performed a comparison between ManageEngine Endpoint Central and Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I can see that the patch management process is much improved with the bundled patch management option available in Microsoft Intune compared to the KPI deployment required by the other deployment solutions."
"The central administration con dashboard is very easy to use and provides very good oversight on all that needs to be monitored."
"The overall user experience is quite nice. I have no complaints from end users regarding their devices enrolled in Intune."
"It works well if you have a Microsoft environment."
"Agile and easy to deploy MDM solution that covers the maximum number of policies. Stable, scalable, and with knowledgeable technical support."
"The solution is easy to use and it has good performance."
"The synchronization of Intune with other Microsoft solutions is a valuable feature."
"The feature I like the most is that we can perform remote tasks. If we want to retire or wipe out personal data or corporate data from a device, we can use Microsoft Intune remotely, and with the click of a button, data is removed automatically. Nothing needs to be done from the end-user side."
"The mobile functionality is very easy."
"The reporting tool is very good."
"The most valuable feature of ManageEngine Endpoint Central is the central management console. Additionally, inventory tracking is helpful for knowing where our assets are."
"Desktop Central has improved these organizations and this is why it has been repeated multiple times at multiple organizations. If something works and is getting better it is worth repeating."
"It's a complete product that allows you to remote troubleshoot, has an inventory of systems."
"Has good functionality and is user-friendly."
"In terms of technical capability, it is doing very well. It is doing better than other industry products. It is at a place where we can compare it with Microsoft products. Its scalability is also good."
"The initial setup process is good."
"Integration between our departments has been the most valuable."
"Microsoft Mobility and EMS include Intune for Mobility, which provides mobile device management and mobile application management. With mobile device management, you can control the entire device in an organization."
"The solution is very good at securing files. For example, if I forward a secure document, it's blocked from others, as I can send it with restrictions in relation to who can open it."
"The product is a unified solution and you don't require to purchase tools from different vendors. The system analyzes behavior and activity and takes steps for protection."
"The solution offers excellent documentation that is easily available online."
"A good feature that is present is MAM or Mobile Application Management. We can deploy this feature on the device, which is not managed by the organization. If I apply some security configuration on a personal device, the user would be really disappointed. What we do instead is that we give all access to the applications related to corporate and ask the users to use the application. We secure the application by putting the security features on the applications and not on the users' devices. This way, the users are happy, and we also meet our company's compliance standards. Then, everyone is happy."
"The solution is scalable."
"The product is centralized and we can use it for security purposes."
"There needs to be more support for Mac operating systems."
"In terms of what can be improved, I am looking for better enhancements regarding Apple management, not only on the mobile device, but also on the laptop."
"Some enrollment features could be improved."
"In the past, I raised some tickets for the enhancement feature, which was missing in Intune."
"Microsoft needs to enhance device-level security, as sometimes when using Microsoft Intune, the device's operating system becomes stuck and requires a full uninstall to remove the Intune bug."
"One big problem with Microsoft is that they're changing the names of the products quite often, or they're quite consistently doing so. Intune is now Endpoint administration. Constantly switching the user interface or the administrative interface makes it quite hard to keep pace. If you are on a two-week holiday and you come back and look at the same screen you have looked at for the last couple of months, it looks different, which is annoying. Changing things around all the time doesn't make it easy."
"It needs incorporation of Knox, ZeroTouch, etc."
"Intune's areas for improvement revolve around security and certificate management."
"The team should work on improving the stability, particularly with massive patches deployment, clients are not 100% getting patches and the information provided by the system does not help; more detailed report would be very useful."
"I would like to have the option to install the agent remotely."
"Some difficulties with setup for multiple locations."
"Even when it shows Java as up-to-date, it might not be. So, to make it better, they should improve the accuracy of Java patch reporting."
"There is a slight delay in customer support, which is something that can be improved."
"In relation to ManageEngine Endpoint Central, ManageEngine NGAV seems to be completely useless right now."
"I would like to see them come out with a SaaS version of the product in the future."
"ManageEngine Desktop Central should keep up with some of the features that other major vendors are providing, such as Microsoft."
"The auditing and reporting could be updated and upgraded. I would like to see light applications because they consume a lot of the device's memory at present."
"There are certain shortcomings in the licensing model of the product where improvements are required."
"Microsoft's feature management is based on licenses. Microsoft follows ethical licensing and hence do not restrict the use of it."
"Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security is expensive."
"Its performance needs enhancement."
"The MDM part of the engine could be better."
"Technical support could be improved. Sometimes they use a third party that's not so knowledgeable in the product and that can slow down things a bit."
"We did the deployment with the help of Microsoft's consultants. But sometimes, we found it difficult to educate the application developers to integrate."
More ManageEngine Endpoint Central Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
ManageEngine Endpoint Central is ranked 4th in Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) with 60 reviews while Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security is ranked 10th in Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) with 10 reviews. ManageEngine Endpoint Central is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of ManageEngine Endpoint Central writes "An in-depth and intuitive product with good cross-platform capabilities, but they should have a more global support channel". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security writes "Seamless integration and easy implementation ". ManageEngine Endpoint Central is most compared with Microsoft Configuration Manager, VMware Workspace ONE, Jamf Pro, ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus and SOTI MobiControl, whereas Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Cisco Meraki Systems Manager (MDM+EMM). See our ManageEngine Endpoint Central vs. Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security report.
See our list of best Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.