We performed a comparison between AWS CloudFormation and Microsoft Configuration Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Configuration Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Intune provides full visibility into all active mobile device users. If their devices are noncompliant with our security policies, I have the flexibility to update them remotely."
"I like the group policy management feature, which performs application monitoring and device enrollment."
"It allows our clients to have the confidence to centrally manage policies for security. It helps them in securing the organization from a technology aspect."
"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."
"It is a very stable and scalable cloud-only solution."
"The stability of Microsoft Intune is good."
"The stability is good."
"The security-related tools are excellent; these features allow us to secure devices, lock them down, and ensure compliance."
"Scripting does what we need to reinstall something from scratch."
"AWS CloudFormation has automated the resource-building process, thereby removing the scope of human errors. We can tag the resources which help the billing process."
"I appreciate the flexibility of infrastructure as code. With CloudFormation, we can define ground rules, control usage limits, and scale our infrastructure up or down programmatically. Having this level of control through code on infra is a major benefit. That's the beauty of CloudFormation."
"The nested stacks would be one of the more valuable features."
"It is easy to work from the console and deploy new database services."
"The solution has helped with automation. I don't have to worry about provisioning machines and ensuring everything is set up. AWS CloudFormation takes care of the entire infrastructure for me."
"Versioning makes our work easy."
"Automations make it pretty easy to provision AWS, development, or deployment environments."
"Endpoint Manager is valuable to our organization because it allows us to connect to our enterprise from remote locations securely. The most useful feature is its robustness and scalability. It is highly scalable and flexible, allowing us to use it in various environments. Additionally, we can specialize the policies related to each device group. This ensures that each group has access to the applications they need for their work and non-work hours."
"Patching is very effective and reporting is very good."
"You can remote control or RDP. That has been the most valuable because we can go into one console and can get to anything we want. Instead of going to all these different consoles, we centralized everything."
"It is a very well-rounded product. It is a complete package with all the features using which we are able to manage our PCs very efficiently."
"It is easy to install, and quick to deploy."
"Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is very scalable."
"The most valuable feature of SCCM is the application distribution."
"It's helped us solve problems surrounding patching, installing, and reporting different patches, etc., on the virtual machines."
"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."
"No option to do end-to-en macOS management. Slow implementation of policies."
"While Intune works perfectly well, the only potential downside is that the deployment could be a bit complex for some users."
"The reporting needs to be a bit more interactive."
"Additional application deployment options e.g. MSI deployment with more complex parameters or additional side-by-side files, and non-MSI deployment options."
"More integration with monitoring tools is needed."
"It would be good if, in addition to the minimal patching and compliance, we could also use Intune for application deployment. For instance, if a device is not patched, Intune should have the ability to push not only a Microsoft patch but also other patches, such as a browser patch."
"The configuration and pricing can be improved."
"There could be better error handling. It would be a good way to improve the solution."
"Provisioning a large environment or a large number of services takes a bit more time than with Terraform."
"For a beginner, it's kind of difficult to set up. So, the user does need some knowledge in order to do it."
"The solution needs to offer better support to other cloud vendors."
"Creating the inline policies is not great."
"If Amazon could extend CloudFormation to other cloud platforms, that would be good. Currently, it is only limited to AWS."
"The code we write in AWS CloudFormation is pretty big compared to Terraform. We need to have more modules in the solution. A library should also be there where we can save code lines. A dashboard feature would be good for designers."
"What could be improved in AWS CloudFormation is its user interface, in terms of graphical design, I prefer WYSIWYG."
"I would like to see an agentless version of the solution."
"The solution can be improved by speeding up the synchronizing of the policies on the devices."
"Devices like smartphones and tablets are managed very well on VMware, however, they are absent in SCCM. I could configure iPad from the VMware site and it was done very easily. It should be just as possible on SCCM."
"With Microsoft Premier Support, you get what you pay for. There's Third Tier Support that you pay for. If you pay for that, you get excellent support, and if you don't pay for that, then you get the less experienced staff."
"The configuration of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager could be improved, it is a bit complicated."
"Initial setup was complex. There's a lot that goes into it."
"Its client interface should be more accessible, and the notifications should be more customizable from the console. It should be more user friendly and have some kind of customized notifications so that we can use it on the client side. These are the reasons why we restricted its use only for the server environment and didn't use it on the client side."
"The solution is a bit heavy on the sources such as RAM or CPU and the software needs to be a bit lighter."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS CloudFormation is ranked 8th in Configuration Management with 27 reviews while Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 2nd in Configuration Management with 78 reviews. AWS CloudFormation is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AWS CloudFormation writes "Pretty easy setup with great automations for provisioning that save time and money". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Seamless system updates, useful integration, and reliable". AWS CloudFormation is most compared with AWS Systems Manager, Spring Cloud, Red Hat Satellite, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Chef, whereas Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, BigFix, Tanium and AWS Systems Manager. See our AWS CloudFormation vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager report.
See our list of best Configuration Management vendors.
We monitor all Configuration Management 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.