We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why
Get our free report covering Red Hat, HCL, ManageEngine, and other competitors of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager. Updated: January 2022.
564,643 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager alternatives and competitors

Jon Abbott
CEO at ThreatAware
Real User
Top 5
Fully cloud-based, supports multiple platforms, easy to set up, and the interface is intuitive
Pros and Cons
  • "It's super easy to use and we haven't found anything easier."
  • "The biggest area they need to fix, without a doubt, is the ability to copy and sync profiles and worklets between all of the organizations you manage, and the ability to have top-level user access control across all of the companies that you manage."

What is our primary use case?

We are a managed service provider and we use Automox to patch our clients' systems.

How has it helped my organization?

We have integrated Automox directly into our breach prevention platform, ThreatAware, which means that having an API is a massive win.

Automox provides us visibility of devices in our environment, in terms of patch status and applications, and it is important to us because you can't protect what you can't see.

This product provides patch management from a single console across Windows, macOS, and Linux endpoints. Overall, the patch management is very good. If it can't do something because I haven't integrated it, you can use the worklets and do it yourself, which is great.

The speed that Automox carries out its functions is really quick. When you install the agent, literally within 30 seconds, the machine will appear. This is really handy because if you are rolling out a load, you can just check them off as you go. You don't have to wait half an hour and come back. We've natively integrated it with their API to ThreatAware and if we say, "run a patch or reboot," literally instantly, those patches start installing within seconds. It's very quick.

One of the key features we use is the worklets, which are used to create and automate customized tasks across endpoints. My team uses worklets all the time. One example is that they use them to install all of the other underlying agents. We use them to connect to Freshservice and TeamViewer, where Automox installs the Freshservice agent and the TeamViewer agent, all within minutes.

We use the fully automated patching process and it's great. It literally just follows the schedule and does it when you want. Obviously, the machines need to be turned on but as long as it's on, Automox will patch it.

Patching automation saves us a lot of time. We try to utilize automation in everything we do. Then when we link it into ThreatAware and use the bulk operation feature, it just makes life easy. We're probably saving between 10 and 12 hours a month, which is pretty decent.

Automox gives us one less thing that we need to worry about. It used to be a real pain, where perhaps something wasn't installing or we didn't have something that was covering all the operating systems, or we had multiple products being used. We never felt fully confident that everything was being done but now, we can see exactly what's done, and what isn't. Literally, it's our go-to product for patching and we don't use anything else.

What is most valuable?

There are three features that I find quite valuable.

  • It is completely cloud-based.
  • It works on every operating system.
  • It supports worklets, which means that it's really agile in what we can do with it.

Although we use it for patching, we also use it for pinging off other commands and scripts like uninstalls and just general fixes. We put Automox on first, then everything else follows using the policies and it's all automated. It works very well.

It is important to us that this is a cloud-native platform because we are a fully cloud-based business. We only use things that are in the cloud, pretty much. For us, the thought of having to maintain servers is foreign because it's something that we just don't want to do anymore. We used to, many years ago, but not anymore.

Automox's console has a clear interface, it's easy to use, and it looks good. In terms of importance, looking good doesn't really matter but the fact that it does look good means that it just makes it a lot more intuitive. What you need to do is clear.

It's super easy to use and we haven't found anything easier. You just specify what you want to patch, and what level. For example, you can choose to just do security, or you can do everything. You tick a few boxes and it's done. That's how easy it should be.

We've used a lot of other products, as well, and many of them are not easy to use. I think that SCCM is probably a prime example of the most complicated way of doing patching. With Automox, its usability is a sign that it's a very well put together, well thought out product. If it's there to do a task, you shouldn't need to be tweaking and adjusting.

What needs improvement?

The biggest area they need to fix, without a doubt, is the ability to copy and sync profiles and worklets between all of the organizations you manage, and the ability to have top-level user access control across all of the companies that you manage. This is important to us because we manage multiple companies and they're all in our profile, but all of the policies, the worklets, and the user access is all unique for every single company. It's a real pain and I wish they'd fix that.

As it is now, we have to create a worklet or policy for each client instead of replicating them. Also, for users, you have to invite one user to every single company. So, you create the user one, then invite them. If you haven't been invited to a company then you don't know what you haven't been invited to. It's a real pain and they really need to sort that out. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Automox for a couple of years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is rock-solid and I've never had a problem accessing it. It's always online, and it's always fast.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's scalable, but there's definitely that issue with the overall manageability of each client, and it is becoming annoying. In terms of adding in new machines, there is no issue there. However, adding in lots of different companies, because we're an MSP, does become a bit of a pain.

We've got approximately 15 people working on it and they're engineers ranging from second to third line.

This is a chargeable product, so we don't have all of our clients on it. At this point, we're probably protecting about 1,800 machines with it. We do plan on increasing the number of endpoints in the future.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support team is really good. We have used them and they are fast. They're getting issues solved.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We were using SolarWinds N-able a long time ago and we were using Windows Update Services before that. Neither were fit for the purpose. N-able was unbelievably complicated to set up and not very effective. Windows Update was not fit because it can't do Macs, third-party tools, or Linux. Also, it was pretty hit and miss on how good it was during the patching, even on its own Windows machines.

Both of these solutions were pretty abysmal, to be honest, which prompted us, a few years back, to go looking for something better.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is really easy and it involves only four steps. All you have to do is create your policies. In fact, we've written a guide on it in ThreatAware.

We've rolled out to each of our clients and we have a set way that we create our policies. It is a top-level template that we implement and we follow it each time we're setting up a new client. It takes about four hours to complete.

Setting up the policies is extremely easy. You create your groups and you do this by working out what type of machines you have and how you want those groups to be. You may choose to do it based on the operating system type, or on the severity of the criticalness. You might have a testing group, and you might also have one that's linked to schedules.

Then, you create the relevant policies that match that. So for example, you might decide that you're going to patch once a week, and you're going to start patching your test machines on Monday, then you're going to expand your group a little bit further on Tuesday. Eventually ramping that up to the critical systems on Friday.

After that, you link the policies so you know one's going to do X number of updates and it's going to do that once a week. Then you might have another policy, maybe once a month, where you are going to do feature updates. You may be doing security updates once a week, then your feature updates once a month. You just create those relevant groups and policies and tick the boxes you need. It really is that simple where you can specify something like "I want Windows and I want security, critical patches only, and I want that every Monday." Create that, then link it to the group. That's it, done. After that, all that remains is assigning the computers to the right groups.

What was our ROI?

We have definitely seen ROI from Automox, both in terms of time and money savings.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing is fairly reasonable for what you get. We are on the premium licensing, which is the one that has the API capability that we use. There isn't any additional cost on top of that.

I wouldn't mind it being a bit cheaper but I wouldn't want it to be much more expensive. It's getting close to the point where we would need to look at other options if it were priced any higher.

We made use of the free trial before implementing it. This was very important because we don't implement any technology unless we try it.

We have used on-premise solutions to manage patching, configurations, and software, and it's going to be more expensive if you implement the on-premises route. It's not about the cost of that one server; rather, it's the cost of maintaining on-premises equipment, in general, and all of the limitations that come with it.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We looked at ManageEngine and several others. I know that there was none that actually supported all of the operating systems and worked solely on one agent being rolled out. They all needed to have some kind of infrastructure.

That landscape has changed now, as there are more competitors than they had then. However, they are leaders in this area, and we know this because we do evaluate quite regularly.

What other advice do I have?

My advice for anybody who is considering Automox is to utilize the free trial. It really doesn't take long to do it. What you can do is just install the agents on a handful of machines, then you can just put it in discovery mode. From there, it would tell you exactly what patches are missing, and you'll see the difference between what Automox is finding and how many things are missed already. Generally, whenever we do that, you see that the previous patching method is not as good.

Then you can start testing out the policies a bit more and actually getting them installed. It really doesn't take long. In a week, I think you'll be able to see how effective it is. It's a neat little system. It's good.

The biggest lesson that I have learned is an obvious one, but watch out for the auto-reboot option in the policies so that it doesn't just go and reboot all of the machines. The notification feature is okay, although it's a little bit hit and miss. It will give you the notifications, but then if you ignore them enough times then it won't tell you that it's just going to go ahead and install immediately. When this happens, it may just reboot the machine. It will have given you a lot of warning but it's not right at that moment. It is something that you should be mindful of. The best thing to do is choose to reboot at one of the times it is asking.

Overall, this is a really good solution and we are really impressed with it. However, I would still like to see further integrations. I know that they are pushing people to use the worklets but I still think it creates more effort for the client. I would also like to see the ability to handle customers within one larger group and fix the access control between multiple customers.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor. The reviewer's company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Flag as inappropriate
JonathanShilling
System Analyst II at a energy/utilities company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
A good product for managing patches and updates that could be more robust and up-to-date
Pros and Cons
  • "Satellite gives administrators the ability to target deployments and only send out the updates or provision updates to certain groups."
  • "It cuts down significantly on the administrative time it takes to patch systems in a large environment."
  • "The product could have more diversity in what it is able to deploy and might do better if it was not dedicated to Red Hat products only."
  • "It has not been significantly updated in a while."

What is our primary use case?

Red Hat is an operating system. It has been out since 1995 or 1996 and went through a few iterations before it became a true enterprise solution. Basically, they changed their name and changed the version name back between about 2003 to 2005 when they came to that point.  

Satellite is a package management solution most commonly used to maintain patch levels and security updates. It is something like what SCCM (System Center Configuration Manager) does on Windows servers and Windows workstations.  

What is most valuable?

Red Hat Satellite ties in with the Ansible Tower (software provisioning, configuration management, and application deployment). Ansible Tower is part of the Red Hat automation suite. Ansible is a pre-solution open-source product that allows you to automate the building and deployment of something similar to what you get with Amazon when you go to order a server. Basically it is like cloud technology. It allows the developer to order a custom server using a playbook. It could be Windows or Red Hat or a couple of other different platform distributions. The Red Hat Satellite stores all of the packages — or it is mainly Satellite which stores the packages. It is a deployment tool. It can deploy updates and various other solutions. It is scriptable using Python scripting, and Perl scripting, those being the base languages.  

Satellite can automate most of your update solutions. It also gives the administrators the ability to target deployments and only send out the updates or provision updates to certain groups. Microsoft puts out brand new patches every month and that sort of frequency needs to be managed. With Satellite, you can say you want to deploy these brand new patches to your development boxes and see if it breaks anything before you do any damage in production. If it does not break anything, then the patches or updates can go on to QA for testing. If everything works fine there, then you can group promote it and automate it out to production. Satellite helps manage these deployment processes in a logical fashion.  

What needs improvement?

I do not really notice anything in the product that is a glaring omission or that absolutely needs to be added. There is always room for improvement, no matter what software package you are using. I would say the room for improvement to me would be to include more diversity in what it can deploy. Right now, it is specifically for Red Hat products. Being able to deploy other products would be a benefit. For example, say if you have Ubuntu running in your network. Being able to deploy packages for Ubuntu with Red Hat Satellite for that product would be nice and would give you more of a single pane of glass solution. Having a centralized repository for your Windows patching would be nice. SCCM is a much more expensive solution than Satellite. You have got the licensing issues and all that wonderful stuff to go through. Satellite is a pretty robust solution in handling its responsibilities. Although I really have not gone through it enough to tell you all the little quirks, it would be nice to see its capabilities expanded.  

For how long have I used the solution?

I am not positive for exactly how long the company has been using the solution. Myself, I have used it quite a few times over the years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I think that Satellite is a pretty stable product. You download your repositories, check the versions you are running, download your packages, and then deploy them to your servers. The upgrades are really not a problem and the whole system is pretty controlled and stable.  

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Satellite is a scalable solution. It actually makes life a lot easier on your administrators. When you have a small company that has only about 50 to 100 Red Hat servers it may not be so valuable and that will depend on your management and your team. But in an environment where you have, say, 500 to 1000 servers, it cuts down significantly on the administrative time it takes to patch all those systems. I am talking about the number of servers and not the number of users. Because you can deploy the patches straight from Satellite, allowing for more automation, it does a good job and it is an efficient and dedicated tool.  

The biggest upgrade you could talk about and the one thing I would like to see added to Red Hat Satellite is demonstrated by how Oracle Linux handles upgrades. I am not a huge fan of Oracle Linux in general, but the method they use for applying patches is one feature that Oracle does use that is really nice. It allows a case splice. Basically that creates a scenario where it allows patches and kernel upgrades to be applied to the server without forcing a reboot. If Red Hat Satellite could implement something like that it would improve the product.  

In our environment, there are maybe three or four people who are generally used to maintain the solution or deploy the updates. That accounts for the total number of Red Hat administrators.  

How are customer service and technical support?

On a scale of one to ten where ten is the best, I would say that I would give Red Hat support about an eight. The high-end of eight out of ten. Say eight-point-five or eight-point-seven. Tech support across the board with tech companies is kind of spotty. For example, I have dealt with Microsoft in the past. I have been both in discussions with Windows systems engineers and Red Hat systems engineers. My experience with Microsoft is that I actually did more in finding my own solutions that I felt I had to share with the Microsoft tech support team because they had no clue. It did not really bolster my confidence with them when I was supporting the support team. With Red Hat, you can go out to forums and user groups and find out a lot of information before you even contact tech support. When you contact tech support, they usually have an answer.  

Red Hat support is clearly better and has more knowledgeable people than Microsoft. That might not be much of an endorsement, but I am happy with the way they support their product.  

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup for the product was pretty much straightforward. As long as you get an enterprise-level license using a proper subscription, you really do not have any problem with the installation and getting the system up and running.  

What about the implementation team?

The installation is pretty much straightforward. If you have dealt with Linux — and in particular with Red Hat — it is a pretty easy deal to do. The more difficult part of the deployment is just a matter of registering all your servers to Satellite. That can be a bit of a pain. It is not too bad. If you have already registered the servers with the Red Hat subscription service — as you would through their internet-based subscription — changing that can be daunting sometimes. If you are not really familiar with the scripting languages it is not so easy to do.  

As far as how long it took to do, I was not here when they initially set it up. I was not present for the original deployment at this company and all my experience as far as the setup is based on my prior experience and studying it by myself. I did that a while ago so some things may have changed.  

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Satellite is usually bundled with the Red Hat premium-level support. So you can figure — depending on the number of servers — it can be from a couple of thousand dollars per year to over $100000 per year. It is absolutely dependent on how many servers you are using.  

The effect is that there are additional costs for the support and all that stuff but the license itself comes as a single total cost. That is the license being a total cost for Red Hat servers bundled in with premium support.  

If you have more than 50 servers, I would say using Satellite would be a boon. Depending on the number of administrators you have hired and the number of servers you are using, it can be cost-effective or not. But that goes with almost any software solution that you use, across the board.  

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

SCCM is a package management solution most commonly used to maintain patch levels and security updates on Windows servers and Windows workstations. It is not really the same thing as Satellite but it is a similar product category piece offered by Microsoft to do a similar thing that is comparable to what Satellite does. It just does it for another platform that more people are probably familiar with.  

What other advice do I have?

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Red Hat Satellite as about a seven or seven-and-a-half out of ten. It could probably be a bit more robust in some areas. They have not, to my knowledge, done a major revision update in a while. So I would say about a seven or seven-and-a-half is fair.  

Red Hat has been moving toward an Ansible solution more than the Satellite solution in recent years. That is not really a problem for me. It is just that I would like to see the Satellite server product more updated than it has been. It is a good product for what it does. It is just out-of-date.  

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Arlene Seale
Database Administrator at Department of National Defence - Canada
Real User
Top 20
Stellar professional services and support, increases security and efficiency, and gives us full visibility
Pros and Cons
  • "It is excellent in terms of updating and configuring everything the way we need. For anything more complex, we do professional service engagements, and they're exceptional. For anything less complex, we just need to ask questions. Their support division is extremely good too."
  • "The only pain point I have is with their salespeople. They call too often. They're too aggressive in trying to upsell. We know what we need, and we know if we want to expand. I don't mind quarterly calls from them, but sometimes, it is weekly. They need to get their sales team under control. The main goal of their support people and professional services is to make sure they deliver the service, and they deliver it well, whereas their salespeople are so interested in making a sale that they're wasting my time."

What is our primary use case?

We have KACE SMA and KACE SDAThe SMA is to image all of our desktops. There are 3,000 desktops, and we use KACE SMA for Windows imaging and security patching and updates. We're using KACE SDA for our software library, so our client base can go to the software library and install software from there. We're using the support component and the trouble ticket system.

How has it helped my organization?

It increases security. We can target any machine or any device that is connected to it and update security if there is a vulnerability that comes out, especially this day of cyber attack. If we're notified by a vendor of vulnerabilities, we can push out an update within minutes. It has really increased the security of the network.

It is easy to use and pretty intuitive. It is pretty much a GUI interface. Its ease of use has affected the time to value because we can get our staff quickly up to speed on all of the components and how to support it best. Because it has a graphical user interface and is easy to use, it really decreases the training time and increases our efficiency in implementing things.

It provides a single pane of glass for everything that we need for endpoint management of all our devices, which has made things more secure. It gives us full visibility into every endpoint device that has the KACE agent on it.

It saves a lot of time. It has probably saved us a good month of person-time a year. It also saved a lot of training and a lot of lost productivity, not only for the technical staff but also for the staff, students, and faculty.

We also use KACE SDA, and it is fantastic for automating our deployments. We can literally push out an image to all 3,000 desktops at the same time and have everything imaged and done within three hours.

What is most valuable?

All of the features are valuable. We find everything we're using very valuable because they increase security and efficiency.

It is excellent in terms of updating and configuring everything the way we need. For anything more complex, we do professional service engagements, and they're exceptional. For anything less complex, we just need to ask questions. Their support division is extremely good too.

If we have any issues, we've had great success with their professional services team and their support team. Their technical support is excellent. They're very responsive and fast. Within an hour of initiating a support request, we've got somebody on it.

What needs improvement?

The only pain point I have is with their salespeople. They call too often. They're too aggressive in trying to upsell. We know what we need, and we know if we want to expand. I don't mind quarterly calls from them, but sometimes, it is weekly. They need to get their sales team under control. The main goal of their support people and professional services is to make sure they deliver the service, and they deliver it well, whereas their salespeople are so interested in making a sale that they're wasting my time. 

We did look at MDM, and I was misguided by their salespeople. When I talked to their tactical people, I found out that I hadn't been given the full picture on MDM, and it wouldn't have been what we wanted if we had moved forward with it. I really value their technical services, their professional services, and their support services, but their sales team needs to really up their game and not phone every week.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for three years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is extremely stable. We've never had any downtime. There has never been any unexpected downtime with the KBOX, SDA, or SMA. They just seem to be extremely robust.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We're asking for it to be scalable for up to 10,000 end-user devices. When we purchased it, it was for 3,000 with scalability of up to 10,000. We haven't tried to scale up that much yet, but they say we're sized appropriately for that.

How are customer service and technical support?

We use Quest's Premier Support for KACE solutions. The biggest value of having Premier Support is the response time. Their response time is phenomenal. We've never created a support ticket that they haven't responded to within an hour and resolved. They're professionals. Their support team is extremely knowledgeable. 

Their Premier Support has added value to our overall investment in the Quest solution. Their responsiveness and their technical skillsets are amazing.

Their Premier Support had an influence in purchasing additional licenses or additional products from Quest. We decided to customize the support desk component because the first implementation of just the standard SMA stuff was so good. We also implemented a Request for Change and a custom Request for Service based on how greatly satisfied we were with the KBOX, their support, and their professional services. If it wasn't for all of those three things, we wouldn't have looked at expanding.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We used Microsoft Deployment Toolkit (MDT). It just wasn't scalable enough for us, and it also wasn't customizable enough for us.

We used SCCM as well. It is much more complex, and it takes a lot of end-user training. That's why we decided to go with KACE.

After using other products, we want to stay with KACE. Earlier, we had a separate Request for Change application and a separate support system. We merged all those into KACE. It saved us a lot of money and a lot of time, and everything is central for our client base. They go to one spot in the self-service user portal, and everything is right there. This consolidation has probably saved us a couple hundred thousand a year. It is hard for us to do money points because anything that's Microsoft, such as MDT, SCCM, we get free through the Department of National Defense Microsoft Enterprise agreement. For us, there are no costs.

How was the initial setup?

It was straightforward, but we did engage professional services.

In terms of the implementation strategy, we wanted the support component configured for all of our different support queues. We were asking for customizations, and it took about two weeks for the professional services person to implement them based on our requirements, but out of the box, everything is easy. We just had a bunch of customizations made.

What about the implementation team?

We engaged professional services.

What was our ROI?

We have seen a return on investment. It is the fact that my IT staff can come quickly up to speed on the KACE appliance. It doesn't require a lot of in-depth training. It is fast to implement and get people trained on and able to support. It is also fast to get end-users using the self-service portal.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Based on other solutions that we had implemented, its pricing seems to be quite competitive. It is not inexpensive, but it is also not more expensive than any other solution. They have the standard licensing fees and support fees.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We evaluated several other solutions, including support desk solutions, and we settled on KACE just because of their ability to customize what we need. Their professional service is excellent, and so is their support, so we decided to go with KACE.

What other advice do I have?

We found other municipal companies in the area that were using it, and we went and met with them to get their use cases and their experience. If anyone is looking into using it, I would recommend talking to people who have implemented it and seeing if it's going to meet their needs. I highly recommended it as a chosen solution, just for the fact that it's end-to-end. It's extremely robust and reliable, and their professional services and their support teams are stellar.

I would rate Quest KACE Systems Management a 10 out of 10.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
Specialist (US IT Recruiter) at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 10Leaderboard
Stable with good encryption but technical support isn't helpful
Pros and Cons
  • "The initial setup is pretty easy."
  • "Technical support has not been helpful when we have come across problems."

What is our primary use case?

We are trying to discover the laptops, machines, network devices, and cloud inventory in our organization by using ServiceNow Discovery. We wanted to have a cross-check between the SCCM and Discovery, and are trying to decide which could be a better choice.

How has it helped my organization?

Basically, when we're talking about ServiceNow Discovery, we have our own instances, and we would be giving IP subnets into it. These IP subnets would contain the range of all the CI's, which are available in the network. Then, once we start the Discovery schedules, it can scan the network and fill in the data, whichever is available on the network. 

What is most valuable?

The initial setup is pretty easy.

The solution is fairly stable.

The security is very good. We have encryption supported from ServiceNow and therefore I haven't found any issues surrounding safety concerns. 

What needs improvement?

The solution lacks the capability of discovering the devices which are not in the network. That is an area where they could improve upon. In the next release, we are actually looking for a solution for the devices which don't come into the network. Nowadays, because of this pandemic, most of the users are logging in from home, and we don't have any way to discover those assets. We are looking for a solution that can help us to discover those kinds of user devices.

During the initial setup, we get some errors and the solution doesn't exactly understand what they mean or how to fix them. They need to have more of an explanation so that we can accurately go about fixing the errors as they arise.

Technical support has not been helpful when we have come across problems. They take too long to respond and then don't provide helpful information.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for more than three years at this point.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability overall has been very good. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs and glitches. It's good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have been increasing pretty extensively. The users are running on a daily basis, and it is becoming one of the major sources for updating all the CI's that exist in the network.

We have an IT team of about 30 or more individuals that are on the solution.

How are customer service and technical support?

We've had to reach out to technical support in relation to the errors we get during setup. They have not been very helpful overall. In most cases, when you raise a ticket, even when it is critical, they take two to three days to respond. Even then, the response really doesn't help us address the issue. We're not very satisfied with their level of support at this time.

How was the initial setup?

It is not complex when setting up Discovery. It's pretty straightforward. That said, what happens is that after you set up the Discovery, there are different errors that you might get when you actually run the product, and that is something that needs to be improved. We get some errors and the solution doesn't give us the full information about what is causing the issue.

In terms of deployment times,  it has taken four months for the implementation of ServiceNow Discovery. The strategy was very straightforward. We just we activated the ServiceNow Discovery plugin and then we analyzed the data and started filling in the Discovery details.

What about the implementation team?

We are implementing ServiceNow Discovery for our clients.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I do not know the exact cost, however, I do know that there is one particular subscription charge for the number of the CI spots we use.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We're also looking at SCCM and comparing the two solutions to see which would fit our organization better. The difference between the two, for the most part, is that ServiceNow is agentless, whereas, with SCCM, you need an agent.

What other advice do I have?

We are an implementor. We implement this product for our clients.

We are using the latest version of the solution.

We use different deployment models - both on-premises and on the cloud.

This is one of the best tools for organizations looking for a tool with agentless applications. You do not need to install an agent in any of the CI's. However, if you go for the other solution like SCCM, that is an agent-based solution, where you need to install the agent on all your end-user computers. Therefore, if an organization is looking for an agentless solution, then probably ServiceNow Discovery is a great good option.

Users should have a thorough understanding of how CMDB data tables are structured, and they should also know how Discovery works. You should also have an idea whether you would be integrating asset management along with ServiceNow Discovery or not. If you are going with a flat ServiceNow Discovery, then later on, if you want to implement asset management, then it could be quite difficult. 

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. I would rate it higher, however, they aren't transparent when it comes to the meanings of errors we sometimes get during setup.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Managing Director at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Real User
Top 5
A free enterprise monitoring solution
Pros and Cons
  • "It's a very reliable platform and we've never had any issues regarding the scalability or the stability of Zabbix."
  • "Zabbix technical support is sold separately."

What is our primary use case?

The primary use case is the cost. Typically speaking, our customers have a plethora of tools and they find it very difficult to manage their business services with a selection of tools. In most cases, they're able to replace all of their tools with one — Zabbix. 

We counsel groups and we recommend using Zabbix — we're a reseller.

We focus on Zabbix. When a customer needs it integrated with Microsoft, or ServiceNow, or other solutions, then we help them out from a consulting perspective. We focus on and we recommend Zabbix. Which is an enterprise monitoring solution.

I take care of sales and marketing.

If the customer requires integration, then there are easy ways of integrating Zabbix with JIRA, ServiceNow, ITSM, and all other sorts of different solutions.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable aspect of this solution is the fact that it is enterprise-level, scalable, and free.

Just being free isn't enough, obviously. You have to be able to respond to a considerable number of enterprise requirements and be secure. Security is part of the enterprise requirements. The fact that Zabbix can offer those things, and it's free, is why our customers choose it.

What needs improvement?

When our customers don't choose to go with Zabbix, it's usually been because they're looking for a solution that also contains mainstream AI, AIOps, if you wish. AIOps is a fully noted marketing buzzword, which can mean all sorts of things for different people. When I use that term, I'm talking about the requirement to analyze in-depth enterprise data. Zabbix is not an analytics platform.

We've never had any issue at all integrating Zabbix with any of the existing enterprise tools, whether it be ITSM, JIRA, or an analytics tool like Splunk — it's never been an issue. Their design team does a very good job allowing people to get access to the Zabbix database and to the Zabbix Schema, which defines the data that's stored in.

In the latest version, which is just about to be deployed, they are adding the capability of doing APM (Application Performance Monitoring). That's a feature that has currently been lacking — we'll have to see how it goes.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Zabbix for one year.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's a very reliable platform and we've never had any issues regarding the scalability or the stability of Zabbix. We've seen customers (not our customers) that have got huge implementations of millions of objects which are being managed. We've never had any issues with scalability.

How are customer service and technical support?

Zabbix is not a licensed software. People don't buy licenses for Zabbix. Technically, we are a reseller. So what is it that we resell from Zabbix? The answer is their service. Either their contractual support, their annuity based support, or their technical support. We can get them involved in certain implementations if the customer requirements require that.

Zabbix technical support is sold separately.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward. It's a powerful tool; it's applicable to many different domains, through networks, through infrastructure, through applications, through containers, virtual resources, and cloud-based applications — it can be applied to all of them. The initial implementation is usually something we never have an issue with. It's a very easy-to-download package. Implementation requires experience. Deploying Zabbix is very easy, but if you don't know what you're doing, you can make an awful mess. That's where and why we offer our consultancy — to help people to make sure that they don't end up with petabytes of monitoring information on the first day. Which of course no one has any time to go through and handle. 

What other advice do I have?

Speak to a Zabbix expert before you get started because there are so many options in terms of architecture for deployment that you really need to understand relating to how Zabbix can give you those options and why they're useful. Options might include encryption or distributed architecture, so delegating monitoring responsibilities close to the objects that have been managed using proxies is a good idea. There are choices to be made so if you don't know the product and you are speaking to someone who does, then listen, because they can advise you properly to get the best benefit out of the software. Zabbix is a free package, you're not paying for any licensed software; the expense of Zabbix over time is related to how it's deployed and used. If you don't deploy it right, then you'll spend more time fixing your mistakes than actually using the software.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Zabbix a rating of eight.

I am not giving them a higher rating because they don't have analytics. They're getting there. They're becoming more and more proactive. They just added something which was very important called 'application performance monitoring'. From an enterprise perspective, they still lack the analytics capabilities, but that's not necessarily an issue unless you're looking to choose one tool that does everything.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Get our free report covering Red Hat, HCL, ManageEngine, and other competitors of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager. Updated: January 2022.
564,643 professionals have used our research since 2012.