Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Adaptiva vs Automox comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Adaptiva
Ranking in Patch Management
26th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) (17th)
Automox
Ranking in Patch Management
14th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (36th), Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (36th), Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Patch Management category, the mindshare of Adaptiva is 1.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Automox is 2.2%, down from 3.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Patch Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Automox2.2%
Adaptiva1.1%
Other96.7%
Patch Management
 

Featured Reviews

Vikram - PeerSpot reviewer
Works at Colgate-Palmolive
Really good in terms of content delivery and network bandwidth optimization
Using Adaptiva is really straightforward. Users need to have some end-user computing and networking knowledge to use the solution. The project or implementation team we worked with had good technical knowledge. I really liked the solution's performance. Adaptiva helped us with network bandwidth optimization and content delivery. Overall, I rate the solution eight and a half out of ten.
Raphael Tiji - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Software Engineer at AT&T
Unified patching and remote access have strengthened security and reduced support overhead
Automox has significant potential and we truly appreciate its features and capabilities. However, we have encountered several performance issues, particularly with the remote access tool. We believe that with some improvement, it could replace other tools that we currently use. Exclusion for updates should be improved in Automox. Integration with Tenable vulnerability management should be improved, as it should be included. I do not have any other improvements needed for Automox that I have not mentioned yet, perhaps only small or wish-list features.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Adaptiva is really good in terms of content delivery and network bandwidth optimization."
"Automox is one of the best automatic patching management solutions that I have ever used in my entire organization."
"Since using Automox, it has impacted my organization positively because it is absolutely great, has a fantastic price, and I have a better handle on missing patches in the environment."
"It's easy to deploy agents to endpoints."
"Automox has positively impacted my organization by reducing operational costs, saving two to three hours of time, and reducing data security risks."
"Automox's real-time visibility and control through its intuitive dashboard is important for our response to emerging threats because it tells us which applications need to be updated on a real-time basis."
"Its flexibility is most valuable."
"Coming from prior solutions that were a lot more effort, Automox's patch management abilities are transformational. When I took over patching at my company, they were using on-premise architecture to patch. As the workforce shifted from being in the office into their home offices, I was able to lift and shift with no effort other than deploying the new agent out into the environment."
"The fact that it's just one product that can patch multiple operating systems is really great."
 

Cons

"It would be good if Adaptiva had everything on the cloud rather than having one server on-premises."
"The stability has come a long way from what it was like when it started and now it's really good."
"I would add that remote support for iOS could be better, and remote support of Linux is also lacking."
"Automox needs some improvement, particularly in that remote support for Linux is lacking."
"While Automox has very good features, I think there's still room for improvement."
"When we bring on a new client, we need to go into that client and manually set up my account, my chief engineer's account, three technicians' accounts, and a billing person's account all over again, which is annoying. We have probably up to 15 or 16 of our clients on Automox now. For every single one of those, we have had to go in and set this up. Then, if anything changes, we have to remember to go to Automox and change it 15 or 16 times. So, we just want inheritable permissions, and that is it. We have talked to them about this, and they are like, "Yeah, we hear a lot of complaints about it." I am thinking, "Guys, I have been complaining about this for a year and a half. When are you going to do it?" It must be some tricky thing or not an easy fix, because I can only assume if it were easy, then they would have done it by now."
"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."
"It should have integrated workstation access. So, there should be a remote desktop feature."
"They need to improve the automation features."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Its licensing for a year was nine grand. There was no additional fee."
"The pricing and licensing costs have been great for us... My advice to others who are evaluating or thinking of implementing Automox is to give it a shot. If a free trial is still available, definitely use it, because it makes life a lot easier."
"Automox just charges us a set amount per user, per month, for using the product. That is very important to us. Because it's a cloud-native solution, you're saving on the cost of hosting an on-premises solution on your servers."
"We are on the premium licensing, which is the one that has the API capability that we use."
"There are no additional costs in addition to the extended licensing fees with Automox. You get your support and your per endpoint license with what you purchased."
"The product is a great value."
"The cost is very reasonable compared to the competition."
"For all these software tools, it is usually a subscription model. There is a monthly charge that we need to pass along to our clients because we are doing all this for their benefit. It is only a couple of bucks a month per computer, and that is a low enough price point where our clients, without exception, have accepted it, and said, "This is great. We will pay that. It sounds like a worthwhile thing.""
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Patch Management solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
University
9%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Adaptiva?
Adaptiva is really good in terms of content delivery and network bandwidth optimization.
What needs improvement with Adaptiva?
We had to install one server in our infrastructure at the data center. It would be good if Adaptiva had everything on the cloud rather than having one server on-premises. The solution's user interf...
What is your primary use case for Adaptiva?
We tested the solution's software delivery capability during POC and got good results. We tested it in collaboration with McAfee, and it was very good. Apart from that, Adaptiva supports many other...
What needs improvement with Automox?
Automox needs some improvement, particularly in that remote support for Linux is lacking. Additionally, remote support for iOS could be better. The integration is seamless.
What is your primary use case for Automox?
Our main use case for Automox is that we as a company need to be Cyber Security Plus compliant, and therefore we need to ensure that our devices are patched regularly. Having over 1,000 devices, ma...
What advice do you have for others considering Automox?
Automox is a modern, simple-to-use, and powerful tool that works well for all sizes of organizations that have a mix of remote, hybrid, and endpoints. Automated patching is a key strength of Automo...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Qualys, Microsoft, Vicarius and others in Patch Management. Updated: March 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.