We performed a comparison between BigFix and GFI LanGuard based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Patch Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is user-friendly."
"Having higher visibility on patching level, on patching successful, and non-successful has been a way that BigFix has improved my organization. Also, the ability to customize the content to do what we need it to do is very powerful and very flexible for us. Finally, in the area of custom interfaces like REST API really gives us the ability to provide for our external customers."
"My company provides support services to a lot of customers and companies. We have reduced a huge amount of man-effort. Along with the man-effort, we have reduced the timeline to fix the compliance and security gaps. We have an unbroken record. The documentation clearly says that we have done the patching of newly released patches, including Microsoft and third-party patches, in up to 80% of the computers, within 72 hours of the release of the production. That was a very massive benefit that we have seen. When I talk about the 80% endpoints, it is 100 or 200. I am talking about 25,000 endpoints."
"We've had no issues with stability."
"All the vendor patches are synchronized automatically."
"This has very much improved our organization by saving time to deploy thousands of endpoints to our customers."
"Vulnerability scanning and patch automation."
"The most valuable aspect of BigFix is its ability to patch desktops. While we have complete control over servers and can easily push patches to them, desktops pose a greater risk for leaks and vulnerabilities if patches are not installed in a timely manner. By using BigFix, we have significantly improved our ability to patch desktops, whether they are laptops, desktops, or other mobile devices used by end-users."
"This product is a great solution at a great price as long as it is only going to be used for a local area network."
"The most useful features of GFI LanGuard are vulnerability assessment and patching solutions."
"The most valuable feature of GFI LanGuard is its email spam feature."
"It is helpful to patch and scan vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable features of GFI LanGuard are the vulnerability assessment, it provides us with substantial insight into what applications are running on the endpoint systems and what vulnerabilities are there in the running applications. The second would be the assets tracking. I'm able to see in the network whether my endpoint server is operating and if all the other IT equipment is running in the environment. Additionally, GFI LanGuard is not heavy on system resources. It gives a competitive advantage over others."
"The most valuable features in GFI LanGuard are patch management and vulnerability assessment."
"The most valuable feature is that I am able to patch third-party solutions."
"I like that the solution can block users from unnecessarily putting devices on the network."
"I would like better support on the backend."
"The deployment has room for improvement and can be more streamlined."
"The main shortcoming of BigFix was integration with vulnerability management. If you had a vulnerability in your software and BigFix on the endpoint, you needed integration with Qualys, Tenable, or another vulnerability management solution to fix that. It was like, "Okay, we can identify issues, and get that information back from the endpoint, but what are we doing about it?""
"The sub-capacity licensing was a challenge for some of it. We had trouble getting it to calculate right."
"I'm looking for them to make big web UI improvements."
"The remote software installation could be better."
"I would like to see for it to be a little easier for new users to be able to learn and create relevant statements. In my opinion, that's the hardest part for bringing on new people that haven't had BigFix experience. Being able to have easier ways to build relevance in ActionScript would be the biggest improvement I'd like to see."
"I would like to see more integration with external data."
"If GFI LanGuard had a cloud version it would be better for people that are working from home."
"GFI LanGuard can improve by adding more modules, such as asset control or asset inventory."
"This solution is limited to the local area network only and cannot manage remote devices."
"GFI LanGuard has some technical limitations with machines."
"The documentation on how to use this solution in a Linux environment is not clear, which is something that should be improved because it is complicated."
"The only drawback with GFI LanGuard is that you cannot directly integrate it from the Outlook email; instead, you have to first log in to the site to make changes."
"When you want to uninstall software from an endpoint, sometimes it becomes very problematic."
"The version we are using only allows one person to use it at a time and does not allow multi-users."
BigFix is ranked 2nd in Patch Management with 91 reviews while GFI LanGuard is ranked 9th in Patch Management with 10 reviews. BigFix is rated 8.6, while GFI LanGuard is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of BigFix writes "Very stable and easy to deploy with excellent patch compliance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GFI LanGuard writes "A scalable, competitively priced solution with a good ROI and easy setup process ". BigFix is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Tanium, whereas GFI LanGuard is most compared with ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager and Kaseya VSA. See our BigFix vs. GFI LanGuard report.
See our list of best Patch Management vendors.
We monitor all Patch 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.