We performed a comparison between Automox and Microsoft Windows Server Update Services based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Patch Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Previously, we would run a report, scan it, and compare it. We were spending 15 to 30 minutes a month on each machine on this stuff because you would find stuff that wasn't up to date, then you had to fix it. This solution takes that time down to minutes. Automox saves us easily many hours a month."
"The flexibility in creating tools to make changes on remote machines is most valuable to me. The reporting feature is also fantastic because on any given day I can bring up a list of machines that don't have patches, for example. Or I can bring up a list of machines that are in my environment on a certain day. The solution helps me with not only my own role, and what I look for internally myself, but it also helps during audits. I can go in and look at the number of machines in there, and their owners and timelines. It certainly helps tell a story for anything that IT requires."
"The fact that it's just one product that can patch multiple operating systems is really great."
"They've been adding some new features lately, which I'm not nearly as familiar with, but the ability to just deploy patches and exempt certain machines from certain patches is helpful. For instance, for our servers, we may not want to roll out zero-day patches. We are able to exempt those and make sure that they don't get those policies. We've got certain servers that have to run a particular version of Java, and being able to exempt those servers from receiving Java updates is pretty fantastic."
"Its flexibility is most valuable."
"It's easy to deploy agents to endpoints."
"It's super easy to use and we haven't found anything easier."
"The biggest improvement to our organization involves the reduction in its man hours... We've probably saved hundreds of hours."
"We can track the updates of the PC and servers."
"The central points of managing product updates have been the tool's most valuable features."
"I am absolutely happy with its stability and performance. It is a stable product."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is easy to use."
"The performance has been okay."
"Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is an easy-to-use and stable solution."
"The most important aspect is that we can centrally deploy the updates that are necessary for the organization. It's important."
"The solution has great potential and leaves the user with almost limitless possibilities. It is truly a product with a million uses."
"They need to improve the automation features."
"Asset management would be a great feature to add to Automox. We would run easier scripts or more out of the box scripts that would help us in audits. \"
"There should be better inventory capabilities. Right now, they only allow you to have insight into software out-of-the-box. It would be nice to also extend that into custom inventory that can be modified and managed by the practitioner."
"It should have integrated workstation access. So, there should be a remote desktop feature."
"We would like to see additional detailed reporting for Service providers like us. We had to build our own reports via their APIs to meet our needs."
"The only thing that we've ever truly wanted is an onsite repository. Currently, all updates are provided directly from the internet. So, if you have 1,000 devices, all 1,000 devices go directly out to the internet. We would love the option of being able to put the updates on local storage so that we're not consuming as much bandwidth. That is literally the only thing that we've ever wanted."
"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."
"The stability has come a long way from what it was like when it started and now it's really good."
"More integration with different platforms would be an improvement."
"We have some problems when we update the servers."
"Having the ability to group updates by the operating systems would be very helpful."
"User interface is outdated and not user-friendly."
"The security could be improved."
"Some issues with scalability in larger organizations."
"In the next release, I would like to see additional tools added to fix the engine issues on the client's side."
"The ability to have more fine control within this solution is very important. It is not available for the solution in its current state."
More Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Pricing and Cost Advice →
Automox is ranked 11th in Patch Management with 10 reviews while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is ranked 3rd in Patch Management with 40 reviews. Automox is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Automox writes "Monitors our devices irrespective of the location and the environment, allows us to exempt certain machines from certain patches, and has perfect patch management abilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services writes "Lets us manage all our organization's updates from a single management console". Automox is most compared with Microsoft Intune, BigFix, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Tanium and ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, whereas Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is most compared with BigFix, ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Quest KACE Systems Management and ManageEngine Patch Connect Plus. See our Automox vs. Microsoft Windows Server Update Services report.
See our list of best Patch Management vendors.
We monitor all Patch Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.