Desktop Central from ManageEngine is a client desktop management with patching, remote control, and configuration.
N/A
Ansible
Score 9.2 out of 10
N/A
The Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform (acquired by Red Hat in 2015) is a foundation for building and operating automation across an organization. The platform includes tools needed to implement enterprise-wide automation, and can automate resource provisioning, and IT environments and configuration of systems and devices. It can be used in a CI/CD process to provision the target environment and to then deploy the application on it.
$5,000
per year
Pricing
ManageEngine Endpoint Central
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Basic Tower
5,000
per year
Enterprise Tower
10,000
per year
Premium Tower
14,000
per year
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
ManageEngine Endpoint Central
Ansible
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
ManageEngine Endpoint Central
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Features
ManageEngine Endpoint Central
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Configuration Management
Comparison of Configuration Management features of Product A and Product B
Patch management is a HUGE time saver. Simply being able to push patches out to devices without having to physically go around to each one save a ton of time. Inventory tracking has also helped us better manage equipment. We are all human and make mistakes, and this helps to eliminate or catch many of those mistakes. With ManageEngine Endpoint Central scans showing us who is using the device and what else is plugged into it, saves us from having to search for devices when they are being refreshed.
I'm going to say it is best suited for configuration management. Like I said, patching even with security, things of that nature. Probably less suited is hardware management, but Red Hat IBM/IBM has Terraform for that. So it's a trade off.
It helps to facilitate the administration of a network of workstations and servers.
The deployment of applications and updates is very easy to implement, and greatly facilitates keeping workstations and servers up to date.
The commissioning of the solution is very simple, and with the help of the external gateway, it allows for the supervision of all equipment, as long as they have internet access.
We can manage multiple mobile fleets, with user smartphones on one side and industrial smartphones with specific missions on the other. The possibility of applying a kiosk mode is not negligible.
Debugging is easy, as it tells you exactly within your job where the job failed, even when jumping around several playbooks.
Ansible seems to integrate with everything, and the community is big enough that if you are unsure how to approach converting a process into a playbook, you can usually find something similar to what you are trying to do.
Security in AAP seems to be pretty straightforward. Easy to organize and identify who has what permissions or can only see the content based on the organization they belong to.
Given these factors, organizations would individually assess their experience with Endpoint Central to determine its renewal likelihood. If you're considering renewal, it might be helpful to gather feedback from users within your organization, review performance metrics, and assess how well Endpoint Central aligns with your current and future endpoint management needs.
Even is if it's a great tool, we are looking to renew our licence for our production servers only. The product is very expensive to use, so we might look for a cheaper solution for our non-production servers. One of the solution we are looking, is AWX, free, and similar to AAP. This is be perfect for our non-production servers.
The application itself is great. However, I have little insight to what the patches are doing. Being able to see patch download progress, not just the status, would be great. The user interface could also use an overhaul. The countless menus, sometimes containing similar if not duplicate tabs can be frustrating to navigate.
Overall it's good but the new architecture can be complex. Improvements can be made in the Config as Code capabilities for managing Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform. Sometimes it can be difficult for those unfamiliar to understand the relationship between Projects/Credentials/Job Templates, etc.
Great in almost every way compared to any other configuration management software. The only thing I wish for is python3 support. Other than that, YAML is much improved compared to the Ruby of Chef. The agentless nature is incredibly convenient for managing systems quickly, and if a member of your term has no terminal experience whatsoever they can still use the UI.
The immediate chat support is great and very helpful. However, if you need escalated support or have a deeper need that the chat tool can't help with, you will experience significant wait times and slow responses. The time zone difference becomes painful to the point of often just giving up.
There is a lot of good documentation that Ansible and Red Hat provide which should help get someone started with making Ansible useful. But once you get to more complicated scenarios, you will benefit from learning from others. I have not used Red Hat support for work with Ansible, but many of the online resources are helpful.
Kaseya's system of handling patch management was not as intuitive as Endpoint Central, however in some respects it was easier to set up. Kaseya VSA and ConnectWise are also more geared towards managed service providers that handle multiple organizations versus a single company's IT department, which Endpoint Central seems more designed for. Intune, while helpful for machine management, does not have the level of overall endpoint management and inventory management and is better used alongside another endpoint management tool
As I said earlier, Red Hat Ansible remains a top choice because it is a perfect combination of multiple capabilities. Terraform is good in IAC but not in config automation. Puppet is well-suited for developers, but not for system administrators and infrastructure integrators. OpenShift and Kubernetes are generic automators only.
We have been able resolve and complete any requests which include things like software deployment or issues that include troubleshooting, much faster and more efficiently. This has had a sharp decrease in our response times and also time it takes to complete these requests or incidents.
The mobile device management features have allowed us to be able to have a much tighter grip on security. This means we have dramtically decreased our device vulnerabilities and risk of data breaches. This has saved us lots of time and money.
The remote features that are available have helped a lot with user's being able to work remotely and allow our organisation to sustain hybrid work. It means user's can still be as productive and IT support is as efficient no matter where the user is working.
We are still early in our implementation and don't have much yet - but I can say that it has already improved the time it takes to deploy a new virtual server for us, as well as making them more consistent.
In working through what jobs are required, it has really improved the communication between our different teams
