ManageEngine Endpoint Central vs. Swif

• When I first started using ManageEngine Endpoint Central, the UI felt very complicated and cluttered up, which means as a new user, it took a lot of time to get used to using it and knowing where certain features are. This was also because specific features aren't obvious to the user, it can take time to find them through multiple routes.
• When pushing out specifc software to a large number of endpoint devices such as 1500 in my organisation, the deployment fails a lot more meaning some devices dont receive the software and this has to be done manually for them. This can take a lot of time.
• When an issue is reported about ManageEngine Endpoint Central, for example it constantly crashing when being heavily used. The support was delayed and it took a lot of time for first line support to address the issue and escalate it.

ManageEngine is considered an excellent product due to its comprehensive suite of solutions for IT management, with ManageEngine Endpoint Central specifically excelling in endpoint management. The platform stands out for its user-friendly interface, robust features, and versatility in addressing diverse IT needs. It offers organizations a centralized solution for endpoint security, patch management, software deployment, and asset management

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.

I tend to use a combination of solutions to keep the estate running efficiently. ManageEngine Endpoint Central has more control over the timing of patching for users. Juggling users being able to work and keeping systems up to date with user satisfaction in mind is a monthly goal. Pushing updates with giving users some control seems to be working.

Incentivized

Invited by the Vendor

A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info