Microsoft Intune (formerly Microsoft Endpoint Manager), combining the capabilities of the former Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager, SCCM or ConfigMgr, is presented as a unified endpoint management option. Microsoft Intune is an endpoint management solution for mobile devices, an MDM solution that allows the user to securely manage iOS, Android, Windows, and macOS devices with a single endpoint management solution. The component Endpoint Configuration Manager (the…
$5
per user/per month
Progress Chef
Score 6.5 out of 10
N/A
Chef IT infrastructure automation suites were developed by Chef Software in Seattle and acquired by Progress Software in September 2020. The Chef Enterprise Automation Stack is an integrated suite of automation technologies presented as a solution for delivering change quickly, repeatedly, and securely over every application's lifecycle. The Chef Effortless Infrastructure Suit is an integrated suite of automation technologies to codify infrastructure, security, and compliance, as well as…
N/A
Pricing
Microsoft Intune
Progress Chef
Editions & Modules
Microsoft 365 Business Basic
$5
per user/per month
Microsoft 365 For Individuals
$6.99
per month
Microsoft 365 Apps
$8.25
per user/per month
Microsoft 365 For Families
$9.99
per month
Microsoft 365 Business Standard
$12.50
per user/per month
Microsoft 365 Business Premium
$15
per user/per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Microsoft Intune
Progress Chef
Free Trial
No
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
Microsoft Intune
Progress Chef
Considered Both Products
Microsoft Intune
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Microsoft Intune
Microsoft Intune fits seamlessly with the other Microsoft products that are installed at our customers. Furthermore, Microsoft Intune has a lot of possibilities and can be used very flexibly. In terms of management, maintenance and rollout, it fits the wishes of our …
Microsoft Intune is more robust as far as fine-tuning security controls. It also allows for software installs, folder access controls, updating PCs, and other features simply not found in previous products we have used. Because it is rolled into MS 365 it's very cost …
We migrated from Skybox to Microsoft Intune because we already owned Intune licensing through our existing Microsoft subscription. Overall, this has reduced costs, increased operating efficiencies, and lead to more streamlined system and process management. It was really a …
A few of our apps get deployed during enrollment, the important ones that are required. For other apps, PDQ makes things a bit quicker as you can hit deploy and it happens instantly. So we use a mix of the two products. If you have a lot of macOS devices, another tool to …
I prefer to go with what is already available from Microsoft to manage my IT infrastructure. My preference is to reduce the number of vendors I have to work with.
Symantec Ghost Solutions only covered only 2 parts, creating and imaging, of what Microsoft Endpoint Protection provided us. Price point wise it was a no brainer for us to switch to it as it covered many other things we were looking for and become an almost all in one solution
We did not evaluate or use other products like Microsoft Endpoint Manager (Microsoft Intune + SCCM). The main reason we did not evaluate or use other products is because Microsoft Endpoint Manager (Microsoft Intune + SCCM) integrates seamlessly with Microsoft 365 and Windows …
Due to work put into getting SCCM up and running, moving to Endpoint Manager was the logical step, without needing to compare to other products and start that development cycle over again. Staying within the Microsoft ecosystem allows our organization to have better-defined …
Not having to invest in Intune and having all the important features its competitors had the choice was very easy to make in favor of Microsoft's product.
[Microsoft Endpoint Manager (Microsoft Intune + SCCM)] was already in our environment when I was hired. We haven't really evaluated the need to use another application because SCCM has been working well for us. Additionally, Microsoft SCCM is the industry-standard when it comes …
SCCM's bread and butter has been imaging, and that still can't be beat. With cloud computing becoming more normal, however, we are seeing fewer instances where we are flat out imaging devices as they come in. However, [Microsoft] Endpoint Manager still [excels] in this area. …
Group policy, the predecessor of Microsoft Endpoint Manager was a great, easy to use tool. It is dated and stuck as an on-prem solution but still very good and served a purpose. We are still using this in conjunction with Microsoft Endpoint Manager whilst we complete our …
We tired other solution which less suite for our needs. Currently we mostly use MS applications and services so, MS Intune ans SCCM close match our expectation and needs. We require easy access and top reliability with support for all of our IT platforms.
I haven't used any of the above-mentioned endpoint management solutions but heard about them. I hope they also provide similar functionalities as provided by Intune.
Dell Kace K1000 does a great job of system patching of Applications, Office, and Windows. It does a great job of software deployment. It even has great software for asset and inventory management. It is also a ServiceDesk platform, and if you're not using that function, it can …
Most companies with Office 365 already own Intune. It also heavily integrated with Office 365. Other product users had more issues and limitations. Security features did not work with other vendors, and we spent more time dealing with issues.
SCCM is probably used across the industry more so than most other Systems Management solutions, and the reasoning behind this is most likely because it is a Microsoft product, which integrates well with the Windows Server platform, and also with clients/endpoints that are on …
We selected Microsoft Intune for the ease of use and its integration with the entire Office 365 ecosystem, which allows us to have an end-to-end of the collaborator.
GFI Lan Guard system is not user-friendly. GFI Lan Guard does not produce laptop/computer images in one place and its asset management is not very good. System Center Configuration Manager was built for asset management and therefore able to provide robust inventory management. S…
Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager is kind of the only option for PC management on a large scale. There are open-source alternatives like Chocolatey, but that only works for very small scale shops. Microsoft kind of monopolizes on this front for enterprise …
We use AD GPO to deploy software, WDS for OS deployment, and Spiceworks for inventory. This solution has significantly reduced feature set compared to SCCM but much easier to troubleshoot and configure. Currently, we are looking into ManageEngine Desktop Central and SmartDeploy …
IT Director of Customer Care, Operations and Academic Technologies
Chose Microsoft Intune
We were a ZENworks shop previously. With our strong tie to Novell that made sense, but as we left Netware and its enterprise directory it made sense to leave Zenworks. At the time, I would have said that ZENworks was a more mature tool and I haven't kept up with their feature …
I inherited an already existing environment system center. My previous experience was using WSUS. Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager does still use WSUS but it is a far more robust and complete solution for managing and reporting on all your PCs. Our Microsoft …
Chef is the more developer-oriented of the three main tools in this space. It has a steeper learning curve as a result but it allows you to do more. Puppet seems to be more geared towards automated the management of the operating system. Ansible is an excellent tool but …
We considered the three leading competitors in the field: Chef, Puppet and Ansible. Ansible is a very strong competitor and has a nice degree of flexibility in that it does not require a client install. Instead the configuration is delivered by SSH which is very simple. Puppet …
Puppet Labs and CFEngine are also open source and competes with Chef. Chef has more support from the community with templates available for large scale IT deployments. RedHat Ansible is better suited when you are already using RedHat OS and OpenShift since it comes as it comes …
Briefly looked into Puppet but ended up going with Chef because a colleague had experience with it instead. Didn't get far enough into a deployment to even really compare the two.
Vice President, Chief Architect, Development Manager and Software Engineer
Chose Progress Chef
We found that Chef was easy to use, and we liked the whole concept of recipes and cookbooks. We were using the concept of recipes and cookbooks for our SQL development, so Chef was a natural fit for our team members and environment. That whole paradigm is easy for everyone …
I've mostly explained the differences between Ansible and Chef in my previous answers. I generally prefer Chef over Ansible because the platforms we use have very convenient cookbooks.
Chef is easy to install and manage, and the learning curve is minimal, as most of the engineers are already aware of the syntax to configure services. With flexible crating recipes and cookbooks, Chef made our jobs easier, and also it integrates well with Puppet. Overall …
Chef is something we have been using for a while, so it is the natural choice when training new engineers to maintain our systems. If I was to choose a configuration management tool now, I would pick Ansible mainly because of its agentless nature and YAML cookbook language …
To be honest I believe SaltStack would provide a very similar experience to Chef and would allow us to automate much of our operational tasks in the same way, however I feel that Chef is more conducive to a mixed environment of Windows and Linux servers. This is the primary …
We believe Chef is a great tool for DevOp. It works really well with repository tools such as bitbucket and artifactory. The other products we evaluated either were too pricey or did not have the support we needed for a company that was very vanilla with automation. We selected …
We were evaluating Ansible as it was agent less, SSH based, simple to use and is completely based on SSH protocol. As and when the servers count increase the performance might degrade. One main disadvantage with Ansible is it is more suitable for linux based systems where SSH …
I really found that Chef to be much friendlier and innovative than Puppet. There is an opinion in the DevOps community that says that Chef is friendlier to programmers whereas Puppet is friendlier to system administrators. This might be true, as I do come from development …
Chef is good for organizations with many servers, because of the client-server approach. I guess ansible can be used for some 20-40 servers, just ssh and run the playbook. Chef is in ruby which is a really simple to learn language as opposed to competitiors.
Chef was easier to setup than Puppet. It also has better Windows support and documentation. Reading through the Chef documentation gave good examples on how to configure things for Windows environments, however Puppet was a bit lacking in that regard. Puppet has better support …
Ansible and salt stack seem to be the new cool kids on the block because they are easier to setup and manage across smaller teams. I think the use of puppet is dying down in favor for these new technologies. I would like to see chef use cases with simpler implementation.
Windows Autopilot makes provisioning user Windows PC laptops a breeze. A user only needs to turn on the laptop, join it to their local WiFi, login with their O365 account then sit back and let Windows Autopilot handle the app installations required for work, configure the laptop settings to meet my organization requirements. I have seen this all completed in less than 30 minutes depending on how fast the internet connection is. Where Microsoft Intune needs to improve I think is the part where it can push out software updates to 3rd party apps. Right now I have to use Automox to fill in this gap.
Chef is a very nice tool for establishing and maintaining a consistent configuration across a range of servers. In addition, Automate allows the continued monitoring and maintenance of servers so they don't drift from established standards. Overall, it deals very well with complex systems. Chef is slightly less applicable for a micro-services approach where the servers are replicated from a simple and known starting point.
[Microsoft Endpoint Manager (Microsoft Intune + SCCM)] helps to speed up the deployment of patches/software throughout our environment. I can easily build a package and then deploy across all endpoints.
The ability to supercede software is also quite handy. This automates the removal of old versions and replacing them with newer versions.
The Intune Autopilot option is very useful if you want to deploy software to devices straight out of the box. You can configure them to download software when a user opens a new PC and turns it on for the first time.
Chef is very easy to learn. Written in ruby, Chef code is high enough level for non-ruby coders to get a general idea of what the script is doing.
Chef can be a one stop shop for writing code, testing infrastructure, and deployment of applications.
The Chef support team is very helpful in their auto manager support as well as active support in their Slack channels from development engineers & architects.
Installation is very laborious and complicated. The number of things to manually configure during the installation is incredible.
OS deployment is hard to configure and troubleshoot. The Microsoft article on deploying Windows 10 via System Center Configuration Manager in a test environment takes 44 minutes to read (Microsoft's estimate, not mine -- check here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/windows-10-poc-sc-config-mgr). If something goes wrong, there are multiple log locations to check on both the server and client, making troubleshooting difficult.
The management console looks old, and its performance isn't great. It is often hard to find settings in the console, and it refreshes slowly. The old name for System Center Configuration Manager, SMS, comes to mind often. "Slowly Moving Software."
One main concern with Chef is the maintainability of Chef master.
The Chef-client should be installed on every node we want to do any automation.
It is mostly Ruby and there's a learning curve. Need to understand the fundamentals of Chef very throughly to play around with attributes, templates etc etc.
The Chef-client agent needs to be run on the nodes frequently to update the details of it state to master. And also to index the nodes based on tags.
Mascom Wireless is a Microsoft shop and SCCM has proved to be helpful in keeping our Microsoft products up to date every month without fail. We also have a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement which we renewed for three years ending 2022. The remote access utility works wonders for the organisation and have saved travel bills including subsistance allowance. We have been able to fulfill security audits both internal and external. We have been able to keep a robust inventory of our computer assets and nothing falls of the cracks
Overall, Microsoft Intune is very usable. While help documentation can be lacking, once setup and configured, Intune does all the work that used to be manual. There is a lot of automation and advanced features and manufacturer integrations you don't get anywhere else. These are absolutely game changers when managing IT workloads.
The suite of tools is very powerful. The ability to create custom modules allows for unlimited potential for managing all aspects of a system. However, there is pretty significant learning curve with the toolset. It currently takes approx 3-4 months for new engineers to feel comfortable with our implementation
It's a 'heavy' system, which demands a lot of resources form the datacenter perspective. So, make sure you followed the requirements to avoid frustration in the future. From the 'client' perspective, it's fine. I've never had any issue with that.
It loads quick enough for basically all our systems. Because we have this for local dev environments, speed isn't really a big issue here. Yes, depending on the system, sometimes it does take a relatively long time, but it's not an issue for me. One thing that is annoying is that if I want to make a small change to a cookbook and re-run the Chef client, I can't just make the change in the cache and run it. I have to do the whole process of updating the server.
Being a Microsoft product, support was good. Out interaction was limited to our in-house IT team which was installing the Intune app in our mobile device. The installation was smooth and we haven't faced any difficulties with the app while using it. Provides a smooth and secure access to all Office 365 apps in mobile while separating the personal and professional data.
Support for Chef is easily available for fee or through the open source community as most the issues you will face will have been addressed through the Chef developer community forums. The documentation for Chef is moderate to great and easily readable.
Work with a "test group" of users who you have a good relationship with so that when things don't work properly they understand! Work with your partner nicely without forcing things especially timelines as you are bound to make mistakes and create oversights in the project Management can also interfere with the implementation (which can cause delays) if you make too many mistakes which takes me back to having a "test group" where you have good relations
Microsoft Intune is more robust as far as fine-tuning security controls. It also allows for software installs, folder access controls, updating PCs, and other features simply not found in previous products we have used. Because it is rolled into MS 365 it's very cost effective. It's also a single pane of glass for managing user PCs and personal devices
Chef is the more developer-oriented of the three main tools in this space. It has a steeper learning curve as a result but it allows you to do more. Puppet seems to be more geared towards automated the management of the operating system. Ansible is an excellent tool but requires you to allow SSH connectivity into all of your instances.
The positive impact it's had was it has been really beneficial in having an all-in-one Systems Management solution to be able to manage all endpoints across the organization. This has saved both time and costs from having to search/setup/manage other System Management applications and also have saved money from having to purchase a license for other commercial products.
Another positive impact it has had was in being able to easily remote into computers/endpoints, and also being able to provide remote assistance to end-users.
The negative impact has been it is not being fully utilized by most of the IT staff, as it is a more complicated platform to learn/master. This would require funding for IT staff to take training in learning the product, or require time to consult the documentation in the use of the product. As a result, this may hurt productivity in being able to have to work on other things.