Microsoft License Management Group Test – The Results

Overview – Microsoft License Management Group Test

It is sometimes said by Software Asset Management (SAM) experts that Microsoft is an ideal software publisher to tackle first when reconciling your software estate. The breadth of devices and systems Microsoft touches and depth of data required; from desktop to server, mobile device to virtual machine, means that any organization performing a good reconciliation of Microsoft stands in good stead for tackling other publishers.

With this in mind we set out to review some leading SAM tools to see what they brought to the table in terms of technology for managing Microsoft.

Tools Assessed:

• 1E – AppClarity
• Aspera – SmartTrack
• Brainware – Spider License
• Snow Software – License Manager

A high level overview of our assessment criteria is as follows:

Criteria – High Level Overview

• How are instances of Microsoft products discovered or inventoried? (I.e. do you provide inventory, what sources do you work with etc.?)
• How do you filter Microsoft configuration detail to arrive at information useful for license management?
• Describe or list any features that aid Microsoft product family recognition or identification of Microsoft suite components
• What Microsoft licensing types can your solution manage?
• How does your solution work with statements of entitlement provided by Microsoft?
• Describe any features relevant to managing Microsoft in virtual environments (Virtual machine, streaming, terminal services etc.)
• What features aid customers ensure they are spending the least possible with Microsoft whilst maintaining compliance and avoiding shelf ware?
• Describe features that allow customers to manage Microsoft contracts and agreements and prepare for true ups?

We were looking for tools that took away some of the heavy lifting and Spreadsheet crunching when managing Microsoft:

• Taking multiple data feeds from different inventory sources and enterprise systems to gather a single version of the truth
• Sifting through the enormous amount of configuration detail generated by systems such as SCCM to focus on the details that matter – The Microsoft titles that require a license and the product use rights for that particular install
• Grouping Microsoft titles into logical suites and product families to aid the reconciliation process
• Helping identify redundancy and overlap so organizations can reduce waste
• Expose license shortfalls so organizations can remove risk
• Deal with the myriad of Microsoft license types
• Deal with the myriad of devices and systems where Microsoft technology resides
• Working with statements generated by Microsoft
• Working with Microsoft Contracts and Agreements

Comparing Apples with Apples

• Aspera, Brainware and Snow Software offer a broad set of license management features for Microsoft license management. The ITAM Review considers these providers as leading SAM tools and recommends shortlisting these technologies when selecting a SAM tool.
• 1E is focussed on license reclamation and is not considered a full SAM tool

Best in Class – Aspera SmartTrack

• We selected Aspera’s SmartTrack as Best in Class for managing Microsoft licensing. SmartTrack has best in class features for reducing risk and supporting efficient spend in large Microsoft estates. SmartTrack also has extensive capabilities for managing Microsoft license models, agreement types and the nuances of Microsoft licensing on the desktop, datacentre and virtual environments.
• Brainware and Snow Software also have strong offerings for managing Microsoft software with impressive features for getting to grips with Microsoft. 1E, whilst not a fully rounded SAM tool, is a pioneer in removal of unused desktop software.

Key

Strengths and Weaknesses Summary

Tools Assessed:

• 1E – AppClarity
• Aspera – SmartTrack
• Brainware – Spider License
• Snow Software – License Manager

Disclaimer, Scope and Limitations

The information contained in this review is based on sources and information believed to be accurate as of the time it was created. Therefore, the completeness and current accuracy of the information provided cannot be guaranteed. Readers should therefore use the contents of this review as a general guideline, and not as the ultimate source of truth.

Similarly, this review is not based on rigorous and exhaustive technical study. The ITAM Review recommends that readers complete a thorough live evaluation before investing in technology.

This is a paid review, that is, the vendors included in this review paid to participate in exchange for all results and analysis being published free of charge, without registration.

For further information, please read our Disclosure page.