We performed a comparison between Bigfix and Microsoft Windows Server Update Services based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: BigFix wins out in this comparison. The main difference between the two solutions is that Microsoft Windows Server Update Services users say deployment is complicated and that the product could benefit from better reporting.
"It has improved my organization because we can automate a lot of tasks. We went from manually patching machines or doing our best and having very little visibility into it to us being able to set it and forget it and getting really good results on first-pass patching."
"We are able to go from patching thousands of machines by twenty to thirty people to one person."
"Before we had BigFix, we had problems with some malware. BigFix allows us to immediately patch all instances of endpoints that were vulnerable to antivirus and initiate scans. That's key."
"Desktop patching is the most valuable feature, because with servers, we have complete control over them, and we can simply push patches to the servers."
"The most valuable features of the solution are Windows patching and the hardware and software inventory."
"The most valuable feature is patch management, a must have, even for Linux and iOS."
"This has very much improved our organization by saving time to deploy thousands of endpoints to our customers."
"I’ve found patching to be the most valuable feature of the solution."
"Provides the ability to create multiple downstream servers."
"We can track the updates of the PC and servers."
"The noteworthy aspect is the system's capability to handle an extensive range of services and workloads, with the potential for almost unlimited scalability."
"The most important aspect is that we can centrally deploy the updates that are necessary for the organization. It's important."
"A valuable feature about this solution is that it enforces an updating and patching process for my applications."
"The solution has great potential and leaves the user with almost limitless possibilities. It is truly a product with a million uses."
"With WSUS, you can automatically install and distribute Microsoft security patches without using an internet connection for all clients and servers. It is not difficult to understand how it works and I think it's a very nice tool."
"The platform provides good value in terms of time and effort by eliminating the need for manual patch management."
"I would like to see the integration of user security between the different products to be improved. There's separate security for compliance, separate security for web reports, and the console, and you have to manage those things separately."
"I would like the dashboard to be improved to show the problematic machines and good machines."
"They don't have a proper mobile device management capability. They're working on it, however, that's the one thing that needs improvement so that you can have full unified endpoint management."
"I'm looking for them to make big web UI improvements."
"I want to see a solution for being able to deploy automated software to a Mac running OS X 10.13, something that's going to deal with kernel exceptions and answering prompts for user permissions for data folders and whatnot. They need to really streamline and automate the Mac software deployment."
"The BigFix Inventory could have an increased scope regarding the tools that can be detected. It does not cover all the possible software installed in Asset."
"I would like to see more custom content."
"Relay selection and availability needs improvement as an incorrect relay selected can cause network chokes."
"There are some bugs in IIS."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could improve by being less cumbersome to use. It's somewhat difficult to use, but we manage to get through it."
"The database could be improved. In large environments, for example, we often get problems with reporting."
"This solution's deployment could be improved. When I was the admin, there were some problems when deploying to clients. Sometimes the policy is not effective. I guess, more on the reliability side, more reliable means working more often with the clients. It could be easier to deploy."
"The product lacks to offer some of the features offered by some of the open source solutions like Linux and others, making it an area where improvements are required."
"I would like to see support for other operating systems such as Linux."
"The solution must provide the issue description of the patches."
"In the next release, I would like them to provide better connectivity. They must improve the connectivity between the WSS with Microsoft or the client."
More Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Pricing and Cost Advice →
BigFix is ranked 2nd in Patch Management with 91 reviews while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is ranked 3rd in Patch Management with 40 reviews. BigFix is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services 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 Microsoft Windows Server Update Services writes "Lets us manage all our organization's updates from a single management console". BigFix is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Tanium and ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, whereas Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is most compared with ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Quest KACE Systems Management, GFI LanGuard and Kaseya VSA. See our BigFix vs. Microsoft Windows Server Update Services 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.