We performed a comparison between Microsoft Configuration Manager and Pandora FMS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"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."
"The technical support is good."
"The product is very stable compared to older versions."
"The solution has a very good set of features."
"The solution effectively handles inventory management, deployment, and reporting."
"It is easy to install, and quick to deploy."
"It gives us the ability to set up schedules, according to what our security requirements are, to automate the patching of our servers and desktops."
"What I value most about Pandora FMS is the simplicity of working with it."
"Pandora FMS provides us with a general report (graphical) about all of the connected devices, which helps with planning new stations and tracking them."
"The solution is so lightweight that with only 4GB of ram, it allows keeping track of up to two hundred agents from a single console."
"The network monitoring and configuration within this solution is very good."
"We are able to control our business with this all-in-one monitoring tool."
"It is easy to create your own custom modules if you just know a little bit of scripting. If you have unique requirements, you can just make your own modules. You can even grab checks from other vendors. There are open-source checks for various things such as SMTP, etc. There is a long list of different ones from Nagios. You can just use them, and within seconds, you get yourself a check that is monitoring whatever you need. It is really flexible. I guess that's why they call it Pandora Flexible Monitoring System (FMS). It is reliable. It does the job, and it alerts. It is also surprisingly feature-rich. Our network guy just recently asked about a particular protocol to monitor the bandwidth on the network, which is not a common protocol. When I looked it up, and I found that they cover it. It is very mature for a not-so-known product."
"Thanks to this software and to the work of the support team, we have everything under control."
"It provides us with proactive monitoring and is very easy to configure and maintain."
"Microsoft should extend support for additional platforms."
"Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager can improve by allowing us to schedule the scripts, we don't have a script scheduling option and have to do it manually."
"The setup was complex and I faced a lot of problems initially because I was new to the solution."
"Some of the capabilities aren't fully developed yet. It's an ongoing work in progress. I think they are making some steps in the right direction as far as managing workstations centrally, like Intune."
"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."
"Based on my experience with SCCM 2016, the main, big issue is not having a good user-friendly environment. It needs much better GUI."
"The solution is a bit heavy on the sources such as RAM or CPU and the software needs to be a bit lighter."
"One area of improvement is regarding the patching of Office 365 products. We have some difficulties on this side, and it can be improved."
"Pandora FMS is relatively new, and the interface with the older version crashes at times. We have several different operating systems, such as Linux and Windows, and Pandora does not run as well in these."
"It would be helpful to include the generation of reports for times that the network was out of service."
"The price for Pandora FMS is expensive."
"This solution requires proper training to get 100% out of it."
"Pandora could deliver better analytics out of the box. You can work around these limitations with the help of other tools like Grafana. The shortcomings are mostly on the graphical side. The built-in report generators are a bit limited in some areas."
"I sincerely believe that Pandora needs new ideas for functionality closer to advanced device security monitoring."
"Pandora FMS is an overall great monitoring solution, but it does not have a community that is as large as Zabbix or Nagios."
"I would like to have a dashboard with all assets displayed, with a quick hover-over status."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 2nd in Server Monitoring with 78 reviews while Pandora FMS is ranked 12th in Server Monitoring with 22 reviews. Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2, while Pandora FMS is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Affordable, easy to use, and easy to understand". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pandora FMS writes "The open architecture is easy to extend and enhance". Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, BigFix, Tanium and Microsoft Intune, whereas Pandora FMS is most compared with Zabbix, Wazuh, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios XI and Centreon. See our Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Pandora FMS report.
See our list of best Server Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Server Monitoring 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.
