- BFSIBanking, Financial Services & Insurance
- HealthcareComing soon
- ManufacturingComing soon
- Retail & E-CommerceComing soon
SuperOps Patch Management
SuperOps patches Windows, macOS and Linux from one policy set — with maintenance windows, failure visibility and compliance reporting, included at the published rate. The honest limit, stated up front: the third-party catalogue is thinner than NinjaOne’s — test yours in the trial.
Data residency & processing
Patch data is estate metadata — which machines run which versions, and which are unpatched — which is a useful map to anyone who obtains it. SuperOps is engineered in Chennai, but that is a fact about people, not about where data sits. We found no published India data region; the HQ of record is Claymont, Delaware, and the platform is cloud-only with no self-hosted option. Get the hosting region and the sub-processor list in writing before you sign.
On CERT-In: the 180-day ICT log duty applies to you as the regulated entity, not to SuperOps. CERT-In’s own FAQ permits storage outside India provided logs are producible to the authorities in reasonable time — but if you are IRDAI-regulated, the 2023 audit annexure asks as a plain yes/no whether ICT logs are stored in India, and that is where an offshore region actually costs you.
Buy through TechBag
Same software. Better outcome — at a lower cost.
How it’s rated
Full scoreboard ↓Quick answer
The SuperOps platform family
This page covers SuperOps Patch Management — the patching layer. The rest of the platform:
Quick facts
30-second orientation- Product
- SuperOps Patch Management — OS & third-party
- Vendor
- SuperOps (founded 2020 · Chennai, India)
- The category
- Patch management (within RMM)
- OS coverage
- Windows, macOS AND Linux — one policy set
- Why that matters
- Mixed estates avoid a parallel Mac/Linux process
- THE limitation
- Third-party catalogue THINNER than NinjaOne's
- The test
- Check YOUR top 20 apps in the trial — one afternoon
- Priced
- Included — no separate patch SKU
- Analyst standing
- No patch-management MQ EXISTS — nobody leads one
- Mobile
- Apple & Android MDM in the Prime Plus tier
- Vs
- NinjaOne, Automox, Action1, Intune/Autopatch, N-able
- In India via
- TechBag — the catalogue test, licensing, GST
Understand patch management before you buy it
Most product pages skip this. We start here — so you buy a capability, not a buzzword.
What is SuperOps Patch Management?
Windows, macOS and Linux patching from one policy set, with third-party application patching alongside, maintenance windows and compliance reporting — included at the published per-endpoint rate.
A half-covered estate vs one policy across three platforms — the honest table
What consolidation actually replaces, dimension by dimension.
| Dimension | A half-covered estate | SuperOps Patch Management (SuperOps) |
|---|---|---|
| Windows patching | In the RMM | In the RMM |
| macOS patching | A separate process | Same policy set |
| Linux patching | Scripts and hope | Same policy set |
| Third-party apps | Broadest with NinjaOne | THINNER — test your own list |
| Failed patches | A line in a report | A ticket against the device |
| Compliance report | Covers what the tool understood | Covers the whole estate |
| Priced as | Often a tier upgrade | Included, published rate |
| Analyst shortcut | (none exists) | (none exists) — run a trial |
Genuine cross-OS parity — Windows, macOS and Linux from one policy set — included at the published rate, with failed patches raising tickets because the service desk is in the same product. The honest limit: the third-party application catalogue is THINNER than NinjaOne’s, and the top-twenty test in the trial decides this purchase. No patch-management Magic Quadrant exists, so there is no analyst shortcut. The 100-endpoint minimum is hard.
The five pieces of the platform
Vendors love diagrams; buyers need to know what they’re actually operating. Here’s the whole platform, demystified.
One Policy, Three Operating Systems
Define patch policy once and apply it across all three platforms rather than running Windows through the RMM and handling Macs and Linux boxes some other way. Mixed estates are where patching tools quietly reveal their real coverage, and a parallel process for one platform is where compliance gaps start. One policy, three platforms, no side process.
Scheduling & Maintenance Windows
Approve, schedule and stage patches inside maintenance windows per client or device group, so patching happens overnight for the accounting firm and over the weekend for the factory. The unglamorous half of patch management, and the half that determines whether users tolerate it. Control the when, not just the what.
Third-Party Applications
Third-party application patching runs alongside the OS patching, and this is where the product's main limitation sits. The catalogue is thinner than NinjaOne's. Coverage of YOUR applications is the thing to verify, and it is verifiable in an afternoon during the trial. We would rather you test it than trust a number. Test your own list, not a claim.
Compliance Reporting
Reporting on which devices are patched, which are behind and which failed, per client and per policy — the evidence you put in front of a client at a review or an auditor during an assessment. Patching you cannot evidence is patching you cannot charge for. Prove it, do not assume it.
Included, Not A Separate SKU
Patch management is part of the platform at the same published per-endpoint rate rather than a module with its own line item. Several competitors sell patching as a tier upgrade or a separate product, so compare total cost rather than headline rate when you shortlist. In the box, at the published price.
One telemetry fabric across endpoint, cloud, and network — threats correlated once, not chased console to console.
Twelve capabilities. Approve, schedule, verify.
SuperOps patches Windows, macOS and Linux from one policy set — so a mixed estate stops needing a parallel process — the patching layer of portfolio, and paired with the human firewall.
Windows OS Patching
Operating-system patching for Windows endpoints and servers, with approval workflows and scheduling. The baseline every tool in this category delivers, and the one where differences are smallest. Table stakes, done properly.
macOS Patching
Mac patching in the same policy framework as Windows rather than as a bolted-on afterthought. Estates with a design team or a developer group live or die on this, and plenty of RMM tools treat macOS as a second-class citizen. Macs in the same policy, not a side process.
Linux Patching
Linux patching from the same console and the same policy set. This is claimed more often than documented in the RMM category, and it matters for the server estate rather than the desktop fleet. Verify your distributions during the trial. Real Linux support, verifiable in the trial.
Third-Party Application Patching
Patching for common third-party applications alongside the OS. State it plainly: this catalogue is THINNER than NinjaOne's, which has the broadest in the category. Build your top-twenty list and check it during the trial — that single test tells you more than any feature grid. The known limit. Verify yours.
Patch Approval & Staging
Approve patches before deployment and stage them to a pilot group before the estate, so a bad vendor patch hits ten machines rather than a thousand. Basic risk management that teams skip until the first time they wish they had not. Pilot first, then everyone.
Maintenance Windows & Scheduling
Patch inside windows defined per client, site or device group, with reboot handling. Getting this wrong is how patching acquires a bad reputation with users; getting it right is how it becomes invisible. Overnight for one client, weekends for another.
Policy By Client, Site Or Group
Different patch policies for different clients or device groups, so the accounting firm's servers and the design studio's laptops follow appropriate rules rather than one compromise policy. A new device inherits the right posture the day it appears. Right rules for the right machines.
Automated Patch Runs
Scheduled, policy-driven patching that runs without anyone remembering to start it. The compounding value of patch automation is that it does not depend on a person having a good week. Consistency without vigilance.
Failed Patch Visibility
Surface patches that failed to apply rather than silently marking a device done. A patch that failed quietly is worse than one that never ran, because it produces a compliance report you believe. Failures you can see.
Patch Compliance Reporting
Per-client and per-policy reporting on patch status — compliant, pending, failed — for client reviews and audit evidence. Because the PSA is in the same product, this sits alongside the ticket history for the same devices. Evidence in one place.
Apple & Android MDM (Prime Plus)
Mobile device management for Apple and Android estates in the Prime Plus tier. Worth knowing which tier you need before sizing the deal, since mobile is the main reason to move up from Prime. In the Plus tier, not the base.
Patch Failures Raise Tickets
Because the service desk is in the same product, a failed patch can raise a ticket against the device that failed, with its history alongside. In a two-product stack that path runs through an integration somebody maintains. Failure becomes work, automatically.
Watch SuperOps patching in action
The patch workflow, the platform around it, and where failures land.
How patching works in SuperOps
The patch workflow, in the console.
SuperOps IT Demo: AI-native Endpoint Management
Patching in the context of the whole platform.
Professional Service Automation in SuperOps
Where failed-patch tickets land.
Want a live, India-context walkthrough for your environment?
Book a guided demo →Windows patched, the rest by hand. Or one policy for all three.
Here’s the limitation first, then what genuinely sets it apart.
Read this first: the third-party catalogue is thinner than NinjaOne's
We are leading with the limitation rather than burying it, because it is the single fact most likely to decide whether this product works for you, and because discovering it in month two costs a migration while discovering it in the trial costs an afternoon. What the limitation actually is: OS patching for Windows, macOS and Linux is solid. The gap is in THIRD-PARTY application patching — the catalogue of applications SuperOps can automatically patch is narrower than NinjaOne's, which has the broadest in the category. This is not a close comparison and we are not going to pretend it is. Why a general answer is impossible: whether the gap matters depends entirely on which applications your estate runs. If your clients live in a common stack of browsers, Office, PDF readers, conferencing and the usual runtimes, coverage is likely fine and the gap is theoretical for you. If you support niche vertical software, specialised engineering or design tools, or a long tail of line-of-business applications, the odds of a miss rise sharply. No vendor page, ours included, can tell you which case you are in. The test, which takes an afternoon: write down your top twenty third-party applications — the ones your clients actually run, from your own asset inventory, not a generic list — and check each one against the catalogue during the free trial. Count the misses and look at what they are. A miss on something trivial is noise; a miss on the application half your clients depend on is disqualifying. What a miss actually costs: manual patching, which means a technician's time every cycle, forever, and a compliance gap in between. That is precisely the work you are buying a patch tool to eliminate, so a gap in the wrong place undoes the purchase. Why we are this direct: because you will find out either way. A page that lets you discover it after signing has not saved you anything — it has just moved the discovery somewhere more expensive. The value: solid OS patching with a genuinely thinner third-party catalogue than NinjaOne's. TechBag runs the top-twenty check with you during the trial, before you commit.
Windows, macOS and Linux from one policy — the genuine strength
Cross-OS parity is what SuperOps does genuinely well here, and it is worth more in practice than a feature list suggests. The problem it solves: most estates are mixed. There are Windows machines, a handful of Macs for the design or leadership team, and Linux somewhere in the server room. Many RMM tools handle Windows comprehensively and treat the other two as secondary — partial macOS support, Linux support that turns out to mean 'we can run a script on it'. The consequence is that you end up running a parallel process for the platforms the tool half-covers: a separate tool, or a checklist, or someone remembering. Parallel processes are where compliance gaps live, because they depend on attention rather than on automation. What SuperOps provides: one policy set covering Windows, macOS and Linux, with the same scheduling, maintenance windows, approval workflow and compliance reporting across all three. A Mac and a Linux server are patched by the same mechanism as a Windows desktop and appear in the same compliance report. Why Linux specifically matters: in the RMM category, Linux patching is claimed far more often than it is documented properly. It tends to be where the server estate lives — the machines whose patch status carries the most risk — and it is the coverage most worth verifying in a trial. Check your specific distributions rather than accepting 'Linux' as a yes. Why it matters commercially: for an Indian MSP with a mixed book of clients, eliminating the side process is a real saving in both technician time and in the risk of an unpatched machine nobody was tracking. It also makes your compliance reporting honest, because it covers the whole estate rather than the part the tool understood. The value: genuine cross-OS parity including Linux, from one policy set. TechBag helps you verify your specific platforms and distributions during the trial.
There is no patch-management Magic Quadrant — and that changes how you should evaluate
You will find no analyst quadrant ranking patch-management tools, and understanding why saves you from a common and expensive misreading. The facts: there is no Magic Quadrant for patch management, and none for RMM. Those categories do not exist as quadrants. So no vendor can be a 'Leader' in one, and any vendor page or comparison site claiming such a placement is either confused or selling you something. The nearest relevant assessment is the Magic Quadrant for Endpoint Management Tools, published 5 January 2026, whose Leaders are HCL BigFix, Jamf, Tanium, Adaptiva and NinjaOne, with Atera a Visionary and ManageEngine a Challenger. Gartner's scope for that quadrant excludes MSP-centric vendors, so SuperOps is absent from it — and so are ConnectWise, N-able and Datto RMM. An entire market segment sits outside the assessment, which makes absence a scoping decision rather than a verdict. What this means for your evaluation: there is no shortcut. You cannot read a graphic and shortlist from it, because the graphic does not cover this segment and does not cover this capability. You have to evaluate on evidence you gather yourself, which for patch management means three specific things: the third-party catalogue checked against your own application list, your actual Linux distributions and macOS versions confirmed rather than assumed, and a real patch cycle run during the trial including a deliberate failure so you can see how failures surface. That is more work than reading an analyst page. It is also the only honest method available for this category. Why we say it this way: it would be easy to write 'not recognised by analysts' and let you infer a weakness, or to imply a placement that does not exist. Both mislead, in opposite directions, and both are common in this market. The value: no quadrant exists for patch management, so evaluate on a structured trial rather than analyst positioning. TechBag helps you structure one.
Included at the published price — compare total cost, not headline rate
Patch management is part of the platform at the same per-endpoint rate rather than a module with its own line item, and that is worth checking against how competitors package it. What SuperOps does: patching is in both Prime and Prime Plus at the published rates — $1.50 per endpoint per month at the 100-endpoint minimum sliding to $1.20 above a thousand for Prime, $2.50 early-bird against a $3.00 list sliding to $2.00 for Prime Plus. There is no separate patch-management SKU, no patching tier, and no per-patch or per-application charge. Prime Plus costs more because it adds Apple and Android mobile device management, not because it unlocks better patching. Why this needs checking elsewhere: several competitors package patching as a tier upgrade or a distinct product, so the headline rate you compare against may not include the capability you are comparing. Automox prices patching from around a dollar per endpoint per month for OS patching with higher tiers above it. Microsoft's Windows Autopatch is included with several Windows and Microsoft 365 licences, but covers Windows, Microsoft 365 Apps, Edge and Teams ONLY — not Windows Server, not macOS, not Linux, and not third-party applications, which need Enterprise App Management and therefore a separate Intune Suite licence. That last one catches people out regularly, because 'included with our licence' sounds like full coverage and is not. NinjaOne and N-able are quote-only, so you cannot compare at all without a call. The practical advice: when you shortlist, compare the total cost of the coverage you actually need rather than the advertised entry rate. A cheaper headline that excludes third-party patching or non-Windows platforms is not cheaper. The value: patching included at a published rate with no separate SKU, which makes the comparison arithmetic honest. TechBag models total cost across the alternatives at your endpoint count.
A failed patch becomes a ticket, because both live in one product
A small architectural consequence that turns out to matter every week: because the service desk is part of the same product as the patching, a failure can become tracked work automatically. The problem it solves: patch failures are routine — a machine offline during the window, a dependency conflict, a vendor patch that will not apply. What matters is not that they happen but whether they get resolved or quietly accumulate. In a conventional stack the patch tool reports a failure and something has to carry it into the ticketing system. That path runs through an integration, and when it is missing or broken, failures live only in a report nobody reads until an audit. What SuperOps provides: the failed patch, the device it failed on, that device's monitoring history and the resulting ticket are all in one system. A failure can raise a ticket against the right device without a connector, and a technician picking it up sees the machine's full history immediately. Compliance reporting and ticket history describe the same devices because there is only one set of records. Why it matters: patch compliance drifts through accumulated unresolved failures rather than through anyone deciding to stop patching. Making failures become work by default, instead of by somebody reading a report, is the difference between a compliance number that reflects reality and one that flatters it. The honest note: deeper products achieve the same outcome through a well-maintained integration. The difference is the maintenance, and whether you have someone to do it. The value: failed patches become tracked tickets automatically, because patching and the service desk are one product. TechBag helps you test this path with a deliberate failure during the trial.
The honest scope
SuperOps Patch Management covers operating-system patching for Windows, macOS and Linux from one policy set, with third-party application patching alongside, approval and staging, maintenance windows, failure visibility and compliance reporting — included in both plans at the published per-endpoint rate. Where it genuinely wins: cross-OS parity including real Linux support, which removes the parallel process a mixed estate otherwise needs; patching included at a published price rather than as a tier upgrade; and the single-product architecture that turns a failed patch into a tracked ticket without an integration. Where a competitor fits better, plainly: NinjaOne has the broadest third-party application catalogue in the category and is an Endpoint Management MQ Leader — if third-party breadth is your binding constraint, it wins and TechBag sells it. Automox is a focused cloud patching specialist starting around a dollar per endpoint for OS patching, worth comparing if patching rather than full RMM is what you are buying. Action1 is worth a look for smaller estates. Microsoft Intune with Windows Autopatch is the right baseline if you are Windows-only and already licensed — but note carefully that Autopatch covers Windows, Microsoft 365 Apps, Edge and Teams ONLY, with no Windows Server, macOS, Linux or third-party application coverage, and third-party patching requires Enterprise App Management via a separate Intune Suite licence. N-able is the RMM-only alternative with Linux patching since its November 2025 preview and a Bengaluru GCC opened June 2026. The limits to weigh: the third-party catalogue is the real one — test your top twenty applications in the trial, because this decides the purchase for many buyers; the 100-endpoint minimum is a hard floor; there is no confirmed India data region and no self-hosted option; and no analyst quadrant exists for this category, so there is no shortcut past a structured trial. So the honest positioning: for a mixed Windows, macOS and Linux estate where the applications you need patched are in the catalogue, this is strong, well-integrated and fairly priced. Where third-party breadth is the constraint, NinjaOne is the better answer. The top-twenty test tells you which you are, and TechBag runs it with you before you sign.
The numbers behind the platform
What your SuperOps evaluation looks like
Build your top-twenty application list
Before you trial anything, pull your actual third-party application inventory and take the top twenty by prevalence across clients. Not a generic list — yours. This single artefact decides the purchase, and having it ready turns a two-week evaluation into an afternoon.
Check the catalogue, verify your platforms
Check all twenty applications against the catalogue and count the misses, looking at what they are rather than just how many. In parallel, confirm your specific Linux distributions and macOS versions are supported rather than accepting 'Linux' and 'macOS' as a yes. This is the phase that answers the question.
Run a real cycle, including a failure
Run a full patch cycle on a representative slice — approval, staging to a pilot group, a maintenance window, reboot handling — and deliberately let one patch fail so you can see how failures surface and whether they become tickets. A tool that hides failures produces compliance reports you should not trust.
Report, review and re-check annually
Use compliance reporting for client reviews and audit evidence. Re-run the top-twenty check annually, because your client estate changes and catalogues change too. TechBag tracks your price band as you cross 100, 500 and 1,000 endpoints and invoices in INR with GST.
The review scoreboard
Modelled on Gartner Peer Insights structure. *Counts and breakdowns are illustrative pending verified review collection.
Quick poll — what’s driving your evaluation?
Talk to an advisor“Linux patching that genuinely works from the same console as Windows. We had been running the server estate through a separate process and folded it in — that removed a checklist that depended on somebody remembering.”
“Macs in the same policy as Windows, with the same maintenance windows and the same compliance report. Our design clients stopped being an exception.”
“The advice to check our top twenty applications during the trial was worth the whole engagement. Seventeen were covered, three were not, and we planned around those three rather than discovering them in production.”
“Honest: we came from NinjaOne and the third-party catalogue is noticeably narrower. For our client mix it was an acceptable trade against the price and the included service desk. For a shop with a long tail of niche software it would not be.”
“Failed patches raise tickets against the device automatically, so they become work instead of a line in a report nobody opens. Our compliance number started reflecting reality.”
“Maintenance windows per client meant we could patch the accounting firm overnight and the factory at the weekend without maintaining two systems. Straightforward, and it removed most of the complaints.”
“Patching is included at the published rate rather than being a tier upgrade, which made the comparison honest. Two competitors we shortlisted put patching behind a higher tier and their headline price was misleading.”
“Compliance reporting is adequate rather than exceptional. It covers a client review and an audit conversation comfortably. If you need deep historical trend analysis, look harder at the alternatives.”
Where everyone sits — the grids
Analyst firms bury this view behind paywalls, and G2 retired its Grid. So here’s TechBag’s synthesis of the patch-management market — tap any vendor to see why it sits where it does.
TechBag Patch-Management Grid
Execution strength vs product vision — the classic market map, minus the paywall.
Cross-OS patching inside an RMM+PSA platform. This page's product.
OS coverage × Catalogue breadth
The grid nobody publishes — how many platforms it patches vs how broad the third-party catalogue is.
Strong OS coverage; thinner third-party catalogue.
Positions are TechBag’s illustrative synthesis of public review-platform data and vendor documentation — not a reproduction of any analyst graphic. Verify before relying on it.
SuperOps Patch Management vs the patching field
NinjaOne, Automox, Action1, Intune with Autopatch and N-able — honest lanes. The edge here is cross-OS parity including Linux, included at a published rate. Need the broadest third-party catalogue? NinjaOne wins, and we sell it. Windows-only and already licensed? Check Autopatch first.
| Dimension | SuperOps | NinjaOne | Automox | Action1 | Intune + Autopatch | N-able |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | Patching inside an RMM+PSA platform | The breadth leader (MQ Leader) | Cloud patching specialist | Cloud patching for smaller estates | Windows-only baseline | RMM-only, Bengaluru GCC |
| Windows | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (not Server via Autopatch) | Yes |
| macOS | Yes, same policy set | Yes | Yes | Limited | NOT via Autopatch | Yes |
| Linux | Yes, same policy set | Yes | Yes | No | NOT via Autopatch | Yes (since Nov 2025 preview) |
| Third-party app catalogue | THINNER — test your own list | The broadest in the category | Strong | Solid for the common stack | Needs Intune Suite (extra licence) | Solid |
| Is the price public? | YES — included, $1.50→$1.20 | No — quote only | Yes — from ~$1/endpoint | Yes | Bundled with licensing | No — quote only |
| Service desk included | Yes — failures become tickets | Ticketing; PSA via partners | No — patching only | No | No | No — RMM only |
| Best fit | Mixed Win/Mac/Linux estates whose apps are in the catalogue | When third-party breadth is the binding constraint | Buying patching specifically, not full RMM | Smaller Windows-centric estates | Windows-only shops already licensed | RMM-only with an India engineering base |
Which cybersecurity approach fits you?
Honest fit signals — because the fastest way to lose your trust is to pretend one product wins every scenario.
Choose SuperOps Patch Management if…
- ✓You run a mixed Windows, macOS and Linux estate and want one policy set across all three
- ✓Your top-twenty third-party applications ARE in the catalogue — test this in the trial, it decides the purchase
- ✓You want patching included at a published rate rather than behind a tier upgrade
- ✓You want failed patches to raise tickets automatically, without an integration to maintain
NinjaOne if…
- ✓Third-party application breadth is your binding constraint — it has the broadest catalogue in the category and TechBag sells it
Automox if…
- ✓You are buying patching specifically rather than a full RMM — a focused cloud specialist from around $1/endpoint for OS patching
Intune + Windows Autopatch if…
- ✓You are Windows-only and already licensed — but note it covers Windows, M365 Apps, Edge and Teams ONLY: no Server, macOS, Linux, and third-party needs a separate Intune Suite licence
Look elsewhere if…
- ✓You manage fewer than 100 endpoints (a hard minimum), or your estate depends on niche applications the catalogue does not cover
SuperOps Patch Management is one of 16 RMM & patch products TechBag carries. The RMM & patch guide narrows them to a shortlist and shows the reasoning. →
What does a half-covered estate cost you?
Drag the sliders (endpoint count; technician hourly cost as a loaded rate). Estimates contrast a half-covered estate — Windows automated, macOS and Linux handled by a side process, failures living in a report — against one policy set across all three with failures raising tickets. The modelled saving is the parallel process you retire plus the manual patching you stop doing. NB: if your applications are NOT in the third-party catalogue, manual patching persists and this model overstates the saving — run the top-twenty test first. Illustrative.
Loaded cost = salary + overheads per productive hour. Illustrative only — your TechBag quote models your actual environment and modules.
Three ways to consume it
Patching is INCLUDED — there is no separate patch-management SKU and no tier that unlocks it. Prime: $1.50/endpoint/month at the 100-endpoint minimum, $1.40 (101–500), $1.30 (501–1,000), $1.20 (1,000+). Prime Plus: $2.50 early-bird against a $3.00 list, sliding to $2.00 — it costs more because it adds Apple and Android MDM, not better patching. Compare TOTAL cost elsewhere: some competitors put patching behind a tier, and Windows Autopatch excludes Server, macOS, Linux and third-party apps. Verified against superops.com/pricing in mid-2026; TechBag invoices in INR with GST.
Prime
Best for mixed-estate patching
- Patching INCLUDED — no separate SKU, no tier gate
- Windows, macOS AND Linux from one policy set
- $1.50/endpoint/mo at 100 → $1.20 above 1,000 — PUBLISHED
+ Platform add-ons
Best for a broader rollout
- Scoped to your estate
- Add-on modules as needed
- Phased, right-sized deployment
Prime Plus
Best if you also manage mobile devices
- Same patching — the tier adds MDM, not patch capability
- Apple & Android device management included
- $2.50/endpoint/mo early-bird (list $3.00) → $2.00 at scale
Buy it for less — TechBag pricing beats list
Whatever the list prices above, TechBag negotiates a significantly better deal — with GST-compliant INR invoicing and local support. Ask us for your discounted quote.
Get an India-ready quote
Tell us your requirements and current tools — we’ll model it against what you spend today.
The 8 questions to ask every vendor
Take this into your next vendor call — including ours.
Have you checked YOUR twenty most prevalent third-party applications against the catalogue? This is the single most important trial test — the catalogue is thinner than NinjaOne's.
Are your SPECIFIC distributions supported? 'Linux' as a yes is not an answer — verify the distributions and versions you actually run.
Are your macOS versions covered in the same policy framework, or does the Mac fleet need a side process?
In the trial, did you deliberately fail a patch and watch what happened? A tool that marks a failed patch as done produces compliance reports you cannot trust.
Can you set genuinely different windows per client or site? Patching at the wrong hour is how the whole practice gets a bad name.
Do the competitors you are comparing include patching at their headline rate, or behind a tier? Autopatch covers Windows/M365/Edge/Teams ONLY — third-party needs a separate Intune Suite licence.
Do you have at least 100 endpoints? It is a hard floor — below it this is not available regardless of fit.
Aware that no patch-management MQ exists? Nobody is a 'Leader' in a category that has no quadrant — evaluate on a structured trial.
Questions buyers ask
Ready to test the catalogue against your own estate?
Build your top-twenty third-party application list, check it against the catalogue during the trial, and verify your specific Linux distributions and macOS versions. Then run a real patch cycle and deliberately fail one patch to see how failures surface. Or let a TechBag advisor run that test with you — and tell you honestly if NinjaOne’s broader catalogue is what you actually need.
Stats, ratings, review counts and pricing are illustrative and sourced from public materials; verify before purchase.