Patch Management

Best Tools for MSP Patch Management

A practical comparison of RMM patching modules, dedicated patch platforms, and hybrid approaches. Evaluated for multi-tenant MSP operations, not single-org IT.

5 platforms compared Â· Updated Feb 2026

By MSP Workflows Team

Contents

1.Why Patch Tooling Decisions Matter More Than You Think
2.Switching costs are real
3.What Every MSP Patch Tool Must Support
4.Field test before you buy
5.Three Approaches to MSP Patch Management
6.NinjaOne Patch Management
7.ConnectWise Automate (Patch Manager)
8.ImmyBot
9.Datto RMM Patch Management
10.Microsoft Intune + WSUS
11.Platform Comparison at a Glance
12.How to Evaluate Patch Tools for Your Stack
13.Workflow before tooling
14.Audit your current patch coverage gaps
15.Map your approval workflow to the tool's capabilities
16.Configure per-client maintenance windows
17.Set up failure alerting and PSA ticket creation
18.Build a compliance reporting template
19.Should MSPs use their RMM for patching or a dedicated tool?
20.How important is third-party application patching?
21.What patch compliance rate should MSPs target?
22.Can ImmyBot replace my RMM's patch management?
23.How do MSPs handle patching for clients who refuse maintenance windows?

Why Patch Tooling Decisions Matter More Than You Think

Patching is one of those things that looks simple from the outside. You scan, you approve, you deploy, you verify. Four steps. How hard can it be? The answer depends entirely on how many client environments you manage. A single-tenant IT team can get away with WSUS and a spreadsheet. An MSP managing 40 clients across 3,000 endpoints cannot. The tooling gap shows up in three places: approval workflows that don't scale across tenants, reporting that can't aggregate compliance across clients, and failure triage that requires logging into each RMM instance individually. Choosing the wrong patch tool doesn't cause a dramatic failure. It causes a slow bleed: missed patches on forgotten endpoints, compliance reports that take hours to compile, and technicians spending time on manual workarounds that should be automated. The right tool doesn't just deploy patches. It enforces your workflow.

Switching costs are real

Patch management configurations accumulate over months: approval rules, maintenance windows, exclusion lists, client-specific policies. Migrating these settings between platforms is manual and error-prone. Evaluate thoroughly before committing, because the cost of switching is measured in weeks of reconfiguration, not just license fees.

What Every MSP Patch Tool Must Support

✓Multi-tenant patch policies with per-client maintenance windows
✓ Staged approval workflows (auto-approve low risk, hold high risk for review)
✓ Third-party application patching beyond just Windows updates
✓ Patch compliance reporting aggregated across all clients
✓ Failed patch detection with automated retry or escalation
✓ Integration with your PSA for ticket creation on failures
✓ Reboot policy enforcement with user deferral limits
✓ Patch deny lists to block known problematic updates

Field test before you buy

Set up a pilot with 3 clients representing different complexity levels: one simple office, one with LOB applications that break on updates, and one with servers running 24/7. If the tool handles all three without manual workarounds, it can handle your full client base.

Three Approaches to MSP Patch Management

Most MSPs land on one of three approaches, and each comes with tradeoffs. RMM-native patching is the path of least resistance. Your RMM agent is already on every endpoint, so adding patch management is a configuration change, not a deployment project. The downside is that RMM patching modules are built as features of a monitoring platform, not as standalone patch products. Approval workflows, third-party support, and reporting depth vary widely. Dedicated patch platforms like ImmyBot or Automox treat patching as the primary function. They offer deeper configuration, broader application coverage, and more granular control. The tradeoff is another agent on every endpoint, another vendor relationship, and another console for technicians to learn. Hybrid approaches use the RMM for basic OS patching and layer a dedicated tool on top for third-party applications or complex environments. This is common in practice but adds integration complexity. Make sure the tools don't conflict on reboot policies or scan schedules.

NinjaOne Patch Management

Pricing model: Bundled with NinjaOne RMM (per-endpoint pricing)Hosting: CloudIntegrations: Native RMM, broad platform integrations, PSA sync

NinjaOne's patch management is tightly integrated into its RMM platform, which means zero deployment overhead if you already run NinjaOne for monitoring. The patching module handles Windows OS updates, select third-party applications, and includes pre/post-patch scripting. Patch policies are configured per organization (client), approval workflows support auto-approve by classification, and compliance dashboards are built in. The interface is consistently praised as one of the cleanest in the RMM category. Where it falls short is third-party application breadth and granularity of approval rules compared to dedicated platforms.

Key features

·No additional agent or deployment required
·Clean, fast interface with low training overhead
·Per-client patch policies with flexible scheduling
·Built-in compliance reporting across all clients
·Pre/post-patch scripting for custom validation

Considerations

·Third-party app patching catalog is narrower than dedicated tools
·Advanced approval workflows are less granular than ImmyBot
·Tied to NinjaOne ecosystem for full value
·Feature update and driver patching controls are basic

Visit Website →

ConnectWise Automate (Patch Manager)

Pricing model: Per-endpoint, bundled with Automate RMMHosting: Cloud or on-premisesIntegrations: ConnectWise Manage (PSA), ScreenConnect, Marketplace plugins

ConnectWise Automate has been a patching workhorse for MSPs for over a decade. Its patch manager supports Windows updates, some third-party applications via the plugin marketplace, and offers deep policy customization through its scripting engine. The learning curve is steep. Automate is powerful but not intuitive, and patch policy configuration involves navigating multiple screens. MSPs who have invested the time to master it get a highly configurable system. MSPs evaluating it fresh often find the complexity hard to justify against newer alternatives.

Key features

·Extremely configurable through scripting and automation
·Mature platform with large MSP install base
·On-premises option for air-gapped or compliance-sensitive environments
·Strong ConnectWise Manage integration for ticket workflows

Considerations

·Steep learning curve with unintuitive interface
·Third-party patching requires marketplace plugins, not native
·Cloud migration from on-prem has been rocky for some shops
·Maintenance overhead is higher than cloud-native competitors

Visit Website →

ImmyBot

Pricing model: Per-endpoint/month, volume discountsHosting: Cloud (Azure-hosted)Integrations: Works alongside any RMM; ConnectWise, NinjaOne, Datto, Syncro

ImmyBot takes a different approach than RMM-bundled patching. It treats software deployment, patching, and configuration as first-class operations rather than bolt-on features. Its application catalog is extensive, covering hundreds of third-party applications with automatic update detection. The "desired state" model lets you define what software should be installed and at what version per client, and ImmyBot enforces that state continuously. It runs alongside your existing RMM rather than replacing it. The main barrier is that it adds another tool to your stack and another per-endpoint cost.

Key features

·Broadest third-party application coverage in the category
·Desired-state enforcement catches drift automatically
·Works alongside any RMM without conflicts
·Highly active development with fast feature iteration
·Onboarding automation beyond just patching

Considerations

·Additional per-endpoint cost on top of your RMM
·Learning curve for the desired-state model
·Smaller community than established RMM vendors
·Requires comfort with a relatively young product

Visit Website →

Datto RMM Patch Management

Pricing model: Bundled with Datto RMM (per-endpoint)Hosting: Cloud (Kaseya/Datto)Integrations: Autotask PSA, Datto ecosystem, IT Glue

Datto RMM includes patch management as a core module with support for Windows OS updates and a growing third-party application catalog. Patch policies are configurable per site, approval workflows support classification-based auto-approve, and compliance reporting integrates with Autotask for ticket creation on failures. The platform benefits from tight integration with the broader Datto/Kaseya ecosystem including IT Glue for documentation. The third-party patching catalog is smaller than ImmyBot's, and some MSPs report that patch scan reliability can be inconsistent across large environments.

Key features

·No additional agent if you run Datto RMM
·Tight Autotask PSA integration for automated ticketing
·IT Glue integration for documentation cross-reference
·Compliance dashboards built into the RMM console

Considerations

·Third-party app catalog is growing but not yet comprehensive
·Kaseya ownership has drawn pricing and contract criticism
·Patch scan reliability varies in large-scale deployments
·Cloud-only deployment (no on-premises option)

Visit Website →

Microsoft Intune + WSUS

Pricing model: Included with Microsoft 365 Business Premium; WSUS is freeHosting: Cloud (Intune) or on-premises (WSUS)Integrations: Microsoft ecosystem, Entra ID, Defender

Microsoft Intune handles Windows update management natively for endpoints enrolled in Entra ID. For MSPs managing Microsoft 365 environments, it eliminates the need for a separate patching agent on co-managed devices. WSUS remains an option for on-premises Windows Server environments. The limitation for MSPs is multi-tenancy: Intune is designed for single-organization use. Managing patches across 40 client tenants means 40 Intune consoles (or GDAP/Lighthouse, which adds complexity). Third-party application patching requires additional tooling. It works best as a complement to your RMM, not a replacement.

Key features

·No additional cost if clients have M365 Business Premium
·Native Windows update management with update rings
·Integrates with Defender for vulnerability-based patching
·Familiar Microsoft admin interface

Considerations

·Not designed for multi-tenant MSP operations
·No native third-party application patching
·WSUS is aging and Microsoft has signaled its deprecation
·Managing across many tenants requires GDAP/Lighthouse complexity

Visit Website →

Platform Comparison at a Glance

Feature	NinjaOne	CW Automate	ImmyBot	Datto RMM	Intune/WSUS
Windows OS patching	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Third-party app patching	~	~	✓	~	—
Multi-tenant policies	✓	✓	✓	✓	—
Staged approval workflows	✓	✓	✓	✓	~
Pre/post-patch scripting	✓	✓	✓	✓	~
Compliance dashboards	✓	✓	~	✓	~
PSA integration	✓	✓	~	✓	—
Works alongside other RMMs	—	—	✓	—	✓
Reboot policy enforcement	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Patch deny lists	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Cloud-native	✓	~	✓	✓	✓
Starting price	Bundled	Bundled	Per-endpoint (contact vendor)	Bundled	Included w/ M365

How to Evaluate Patch Tools for Your Stack

Start with your current pain points, not with feature lists. If your biggest problem is third-party application patching, ImmyBot is worth a serious look regardless of your RMM. If your biggest problem is that patching is spread across too many consoles, consolidating into your RMM's native module probably matters more than having the deepest feature set. Run a 30-day pilot across at least 3 client environments before committing. Include one client with strict maintenance windows, one with LOB applications that have broken on past updates, and one with a mix of workstations and servers. Track three metrics during the pilot: patch compliance rate at 72 hours, number of manual interventions required, and time spent generating compliance reports. If you already have a workflow documented for how patches move from scan to approval to deployment to verification, test whether the tool supports that workflow natively. If it requires workarounds for any step, that's a red flag. Your workflow should drive tool selection, not the other way around.

Workflow before tooling

Define your patch management workflow before evaluating tools. That means documented maintenance windows, approval rules, verification steps, and escalation paths. A tool that fits a well-defined process will outperform a more powerful tool shoehorned into an ad-hoc process. If you haven't built your workflow yet, start with our patch management workflow guide.

Audit your current patch coverage gaps

Before changing tools, run a compliance scan across all clients and identify where you're actually falling short. Common gaps: endpoints that haven't checked in for 30+ days, third-party applications with no patch policy, and servers excluded from maintenance windows "temporarily" six months ago.

Map your approval workflow to the tool's capabilities

Write out your approval rules (what gets auto-approved, what needs manual review, what gets blocked) and verify the tool supports each rule natively. If you have to use scripts or workarounds for basic approval logic, the tool isn't the right fit.

Configure per-client maintenance windows

Every client should have a documented maintenance window in the patch tool before you deploy a single update. This is the most common source of after-hours emergency calls: patches deploying during business hours because nobody set up the window.

Set up failure alerting and PSA ticket creation

Patch failures should create tickets automatically. A failed patch that sits unnoticed for two weeks is worse than no patching at all, because it creates a false sense of compliance. Verify that your PSA integration creates tickets with enough context to triage without logging into the RMM.

Build a compliance reporting template

Create a standard report that shows patch compliance rate, failed patches, exceptions, and trend over time. Run it weekly internally and include a summary version in quarterly business reviews. This is also the report cyber insurance providers will ask for.

Should MSPs use their RMM for patching or a dedicated tool?

For most MSPs under 2,000 endpoints, the RMM's built-in patching module is sufficient if it supports staged approvals, per-client policies, and compliance reporting. Dedicated tools like ImmyBot become worth the additional cost when you need broader third-party application coverage or when your RMM's patching module requires too many manual workarounds. Some shops run both: RMM for OS updates, dedicated tool for third-party apps.

How important is third-party application patching?

Very. Most exploited vulnerabilities in 2024 and 2025 targeted third-party applications (browsers, PDF readers, Java, Zoom) rather than Windows itself. If your patch tool only handles Windows updates, you're covering maybe 60% of your actual attack surface. At minimum, ensure Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Adobe Reader, and Zoom are covered.

What patch compliance rate should MSPs target?

95% within 72 hours of the maintenance window is a strong benchmark. The remaining 5% should have documented exceptions: offline devices, vendor-blocked patches, or systems requiring manual intervention. Below 90% usually indicates process gaps rather than tooling problems. Track this metric per client and include it in QBR reporting.

Can ImmyBot replace my RMM's patch management?

ImmyBot handles software deployment and patching but doesn't replace your RMM's monitoring, alerting, or remote access functions. Think of it as a layer that sits alongside your RMM. It connects to your RMM's agent inventory so it knows what endpoints exist, then manages software state independently. You don't need to disable your RMM's patching module, but you should disable overlapping policies to avoid conflicts.

How do MSPs handle patching for clients who refuse maintenance windows?

This is a contract problem, not a tooling problem. Clients who refuse maintenance windows are accepting the risk of unpatched systems, and your MSA should reflect that in writing. In practice, most resistance comes from not understanding the risk. Show them a compliance report with the gaps, explain what those gaps mean for their cyber insurance, and most will agree to an after-hours window.

← Back to all guides