Automox vs. Ivanti Security Controls

It is perfectly suited for organizations with a small IT staff and large amount of devices. It's also perfect for pushing software to machines that are not on the network or VPN. It's less effective for server patch management. I like to have a little more control of my server patching

Incentivized

Agentless patching is the best of all the products I've used. The real-time updates that don't require re-scanning after each step is great.

Incentivized

• Excellent support for Windows-based systems. Rarely have any issues updating those systems.
• When issues do arise, the Automox support team has been very responsive and informative of solutions (or where projects are on potential roll out dates).
• The user interface is intuitive and easy to use.

Incentivized

• Trusted ownership checking is a good way to implement effective basic protection.
• Patching is important today to react quickly to security problems. With Security Controls, it's easier than ever before.
• One console for whole security.

• initial deployment of agents to all end points was a challenge, would have been great if there was a way for Automox to discover and install.
• Sometimes upgrading the Automox client which becomes old due to an end point not connecting for a long time becomes challenging as it becomes incompatible and has to be upgraded manually
• It would good to have a functionality where an end point device can be turned into a brick if desired in cases where the device is not returned back after an employee is terminated. This should also have the option of turning it back into an active device if we choose to

Incentivized

• Performance of the console when using agentless machines.
• The console layout is a bit cumbersome - would be better if all functions were accessible from one screen.
• Common deployment examples to assist with deployment types.

Incentivized

The system is really simple. We pushed the installer out through Group policy. Devices connected can get further defined by Tags or Groups.

Incentivized

After using a combination of WSUS and group policy to manage patching on a large number of devices, it was excellent to move to a single-pane experience where patch policies, restart schedules, reports, and device status can be seen easily and quickly. Its pre-patch report on policies is particularly handy so you can check if devices will take the appropriate action before it's run.

Incentivized

In my experience, they were responsive but the fixes were more like bandaids than a fix for the underlying problems which they admitted were on their end.

Incentivized

Support wasn't used as the cost didn't justify the expense. We have yet to use the support.

Incentivized

We stoppped using PDQ because it required our users to connect to the corporate VPN. It might take months for some remote users to receive a patch, and often we would have to schedule time with them one-on-one to ensure that it got done. With Automox, we don't have to do any of that - it just happens silently in the background.

Incentivized

Since we have been using Application Control for about 15 years, it is, of course, the best solution for us. We also looked at other products (RES One Workspace), but they didn't convince us. Some features of RES were good and are now part of the User Workspace Manager. The Microsoft solution seems too complicated to us and does not have the advantages of Trusted Ownership Checking.

• Automox allows us to fix vulnerabilities in the shortest amount of time ever.
• The automated patching and end point management features have made our jobs much easier.
• We get to focus on more important tasks and not have to manually patch the operating systems.

Incentivized

• Reduced amount of operating hours for administration of patching.

Incentivized