Lansweeper vs. Microsoft System Center Service Manager

Because of its slowdown as we have acquired more equipment, I think LANSweeper may be better suited for smaller environments. We have 3000+ users and over 1500 devices on our WAN. It has shown considerable performance issues as we have grown. Maybe moving it to a full blown SQL instance will make things a bit better. But as it stands, it has gotten tiresome waiting for it to update and refresh.

Incentivized

I think any organization that runs windows on their computers that is size over 50 workstations and looking for a complete package to manage their windows machines must have Microsoft System Center Service Manager, especially if they have Windows servers and VMs. The capability of managing multiple devices at ones can save a lot of time for the IT jobs.

Incentivized

• Lansweeper is grabbing lots of data from the machines without slowing the network and the client machines. We can easily get all the installed software data, hardware and linked hardware and all the user you can grab from the AD (computer and user).
• Lansweeper can now scan Windows, Mac and Linux with an agent installed (or not if you want that the server is the one pulling the data).
• The web interface is really friendly user and offers lots of possibilities to personalize your dashboard as you see fit.
• Reports engine is really powerful and easy to monitor your machines and also your security issues.

Incentivized

• Imaging - Can hold all of your images and allow them to be deployed from one central place
• Patching - Able to manage patches from a central database and have reporting on machines out of compliance
• Reporting - ability to utilize several reports to check compliance and other items you may want to review

Incentivized

• Ease of use - pushing software can be a complicated process.
• Detecting assets sometimes means going to each machine on opening ports on the firewall.
• Reporting can be hard to figure out but you can ask on their forum. I find that a lot of my questions already have been asked.

Incentivized

• Reporting in System Center could be more user-friendly. While the data is there, sometimes several reports have to be run to get what you want
• SCCM would be better making updates to SCCM easier. We see risk in updates, so it causes delays, which creates more risk
• Improving the application deployment log files , making them easier to read

Incentivized

The price to function scale is so far towards function it would be stupid to get rid of it

Incentivized

Lansweeper offers a variety of customer support options (including KBs for self-serve and get in touch with them via email), and most importantly, it's a matter of dialing within their allotted supporting time frames. However, I always make sure to provide the following information:

- Screenshots of the issue (if available).

- Program Files (x86)/Lansweeper/Service/Errorlog.txt, as present on your Lansweeper server.

- If it exists, the error log present in Program Files (x86)/Lansweeper/Website/App_Data.

Incentivized

The customer support service is excellent. They help from start/deployment through to any time later on. They responded quickly and resolved our issues professionally and in no time.

Incentivized

Lansweeper is DRAMATICALLY cheaper than KACE and provides the same level of reporting and inventory of asset data. Where KACE outshines Lansweeper, is Lansweeper has a very minimal software deployment system that requires clients to have direct access to a common file share. KACE allows you to upload files directly into it's environment, and assets can download over HTTPS those files for installation anywhere. Spiceworks was a great inventory and helpdesk system for free - but the product I feel has gone stale and not nearly as powerful as it use to be - for that reason Lansweeper appears to have taken up the charge and utilized a lot of Spiceworks was going for

Incentivized

It has its similarities between the two from a ticketing standpoint but as a primarily Microsoft shop it is nice to have a product that was created to play along with other tools that we are using such as SCCM. We like Jira for the project management tools and Cherwell for their customization but the latter took lots of effort to get that piece working.

Incentivized

• I would consider that ROI has been achieved - it wasn't expensive. However, Spiceworks could have done the same for free.
• Too much manual intervention. Not strong beyond basic Microsoft products so we had to keep an eye on everything.
• Great sniffer of hardware on the network including switches, routers, printers.
• Lack of features that are essential for enterprise ITAM.

Incentivized

• "Quick" patch management -- once the process is nailed down.
• The ability to include remote control in a central place.
• Reporting is great.

Incentivized