Automox vs. Vulcan Cyber (discontinued)

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Automox
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Automox is an endpoint management solution used to keep desktops, laptops, and servers updated and ready for users anywhere in the world. Using automation, IT can fix critical vulnerabilities and boost user productivity.N/A
Vulcan Cyber (discontinued)
Score 7.5 out of 10
Mid-Size Companies (51-1,000 employees)
Vulcan Cyber was an exposure and vulnerability risk mitigation platform, acquired by Tenable in early 2025. The product is no longer available for sale, and functionality has been integrated into the Tenable One Exposure Management platform's vulnerability solution.N/A
Pricing
AutomoxVulcan Cyber (discontinued)
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
AutomoxVulcan Cyber (discontinued)
Free Trial
YesNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsAutomox can patch macOS, Windows, and Linux endpoints with PatchOS, an offering at $1 per endpoint/ month with an annual commitment. The Automate Essentials or Automate Enterprise packages are for scaling IT automation, endpoint configuration, and software updates. Modules are available with Automox Assist, a one-on-one remote endpoint control and assistance for helpdesk technicians.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
AutomoxVulcan Cyber (discontinued)
Considered Both Products
Automox
Chose Automox
worklegs are more advance on Automox, and the reports on Automox give you more detail information, the patching support is better on Automox, Atera can be simple but effective. However, Automox is a more efficient tool and like said before, better for large counts of devices. …
Chose Automox
We felt that Automox provided us with the functionality our MSP offered, including OS and device patching, as well as remote control capabilities, but in a better and more manageable way. We also felt the usability of the tool gave us the ability to be effective in our way of …
Chose Automox
TeamViewer excels in remote support, but lacks in patch management. Automox's patch management is reliable and stable.
Chose Automox
Automox has a much better user interface. Much simpler to use and share tasks with other team members. They offer great additional training and certifications to help you become an expert.
Chose Automox
We chose Automox for it's clean/easy to use UI, remote control capabilities, and automation/patching. The balance of effectiveness and cost made it the best choice for our org
Chose Automox
While not a direct analog, we have noted that our A/V provider also handles patching. That being said, the solution is not as al la carte as Automox, and requires much more thought to implement. Automox is a favorite for its lightweight nature and it's time to implementation …
Chose Automox
All of these other products are overly complicated with user interfaces that are not very friendly.. too technical, even for IT pros. They are also expensive for smaller companies or those with limited IT budgets. I've found that these other solutions are really geared for …
Chose Automox
Automox has a could based console and platform which can cater the computers outside the network. It's not possible in Lan Guard. Also Automox support cross platform and have a very big 3rd party application support than intune. So better to go with Automox
Chose Automox
We just really liked the ease of use and setup for Automox over other products in general. Support is amazing as well.
Chose Automox
Cloud-based solution with no need for on-prem infrastructure. Support Windows, macOS, Linux, and third-party applications. Cost-effective solution compared with other vendors.
Chose Automox
Compared to these solutions, Automox outranks them as the Automox is highly personalized for different types of device types. It supports Windows, Linux, and macOS devices very effectively. Other products are also support other types of devices, but not this much of control can …
Chose Automox
Automox is by far the easiest to use and does a better job patching. The built in AI tool is a real time saver making writing Powershell scripts quick and easy.
Chose Automox
AutoMox is the first product I have tried for app updates, and I don't think I need to try any others.
Chose Automox
Don't remember the specific products as this was done by the whole team. But once we started evaluating Automox, it was definitely the product.
Chose Automox
Automox is cloud-based which makes it a much better product in todays world.
Chose Automox
NinjaONE does really well as an RMM. They are still a baby in patching, but they are growing rapidly. Qualys for patching is a little complicated to use. You actually need to be certified with them to comfortably use it. Their support is a little bit hard to work with.
Chose Automox
I didn't like any of them vs Automox just liked it the momement I started using it. I think we were one of the early adopters of Automox
Vulcan Cyber (discontinued)
Chose Vulcan Cyber (discontinued)
Acronis Cyber Protect
Chose Vulcan Cyber (discontinued)
I wasn't here at the time when the company compared different vulnerability management platforms so I'm not sure on the reasoning and difference between the 2. It could be that the team went through different choices and found Vulcan to be the best fit. It's hard for me to say …
Chose Vulcan Cyber (discontinued)
My role is not in charge of selecting more services or products like Vulcan. I just use them as part of my daily responsibilities. Maybe other roles can give more feedback about this.
Chose Vulcan Cyber (discontinued)
Nucleus Security was missing some connectors and was more focused on risk prioritization than ticketing automation.

Seemplicity had a different billing method that may have ended up being more expensive. Also a younger app.
Chose Vulcan Cyber (discontinued)
Vulcan Cyber has a more mature platform catered for enterprise customers compared to Nucleus. The very close support and attention to detail of the Vulcan sales and technical team also helped in answering any possible question we had about the platform or take note of our …
Chose Vulcan Cyber (discontinued)
The competitors were either more complex to implement or higher cost for similar capabilities.
Chose Vulcan Cyber (discontinued)
Vulcan was easier to implement with our existing Security environment. The UX and UI were more intuitive and user-friendly. While SOAR is a super solid product, for our business Vulcan made more sense. It was more of a natural fit for a rapidly-expanding company in a …
Features
AutomoxVulcan Cyber (discontinued)
Threat Intelligence
Comparison of Threat Intelligence features of Product A and Product B
Automox
-
Ratings
Vulcan Cyber (discontinued)
7.9
Ratings
0% below category average
Network Analytics00 Ratings7.70 Ratings
Vulnerability Classification00 Ratings8.20 Ratings
Automated Alerts and Reporting00 Ratings7.40 Ratings
Threat Analysis00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Automated Threat Identification00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Vulnerability Management Tools
Comparison of Vulnerability Management Tools features of Product A and Product B
Automox
-
Ratings
Vulcan Cyber (discontinued)
7.3
Ratings
10% below category average
IT Asset Realization00 Ratings8.20 Ratings
Configuration Monitoring00 Ratings6.40 Ratings
Vulnerability Intelligence00 Ratings7.40 Ratings
Best Alternatives
AutomoxVulcan Cyber (discontinued)
Small Businesses
Avast CloudCare
Avast CloudCare
Score 10.0 out of 10
Action1
Action1
Score 9.5 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
KACE Systems Management Appliance
KACE Systems Management Appliance
Score 10.0 out of 10
Action1
Action1
Score 9.5 out of 10
Enterprises
KACE Systems Management Appliance
KACE Systems Management Appliance
Score 10.0 out of 10
CrowdStrike Falcon
CrowdStrike Falcon
Score 9.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
AutomoxVulcan Cyber (discontinued)
Likelihood to Recommend
8.9
(0 ratings)
7.2
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
8.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Availability
5.5
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
1.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.2
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
-
(0 ratings)
7.1
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
6.4
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
AutomoxVulcan Cyber (discontinued)
Likelihood to Recommend
Automox is well-suited for managing workstations but lacks flexibility for server environments.
It excels in scenarios where systems may not regularly connect to the corporate network but have internet access, ensuring devices can still check in and receive timely patches. This provides organizations with confidence in maintaining patch compliance across remote endpoints.
However, effective use of Automox requires staff who are proficient in PowerShell scripting. The platform has limited native support for third-party applications, often requiring custom worklets to manage software updates. It performs best in environments that primarily rely on widely used, off-the-shelf software.
Read full review
We use Vulcan Cyber to help with the technical debt accrued over time with systems that were not maintained as well as they should be. To combat this, we use the campaign feature to keep a running tab on every system to ensure it is brought up to standards and maintained.
Read full review
Pros
  • Shows applications installed on a specific asset
  • Able to push policies and updates remotely , creating policies is easy.
  • Keep track of compliant devices and when is the last time they have connected to the servers
  • All the great information provided within one single device
Read full review
  • The user interface makes it very easy to use.
  • It provides a clear picture and helps us to make decisions.
  • It offers automation and risk visibility.
Read full review
Cons
  • I was not aware that the starting default policies are inactive until I activate them. That would have been a nice pop up to see on first login.
  • I think the pricing for integrating 3rd party apps could be more competitive. The base tier is so affordable, the jump up is a bit high.
  • I'd like the option to remember my device and not have to use 2FA on every single login to the dashboard from the same device.
  • I looked, and cannot find, but would appreciate an iOS mobile app of the dashboard to monitor and adminstrate from my mobile device.
Read full review
  • Deduping of assets could be better.
  • The weighting of vulnerabilities is hard to describe to non technical executives.
  • The Business Groups and Tagging needs improvement. Or at least allow tags to be removed if not needed. Now they are static from the API feed.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
This is a software that just works. Once configured its a set and forget kind of tool that keeps things up to date and alerts me if something is wrong. I was able to work through an expansion project to deploy an additional 500 devices in almost no time and create a robust self-patching environment.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
It is super simple to set up and deploy, Maintaining it also easy as pie. It gives great detailed information daily on patches that succeed and ones that fail as well. with remote, patching, scanning, and monitoring all in one pane it has saved us money hand over fist with the tools we no longer need to have for our organization.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
1. Simplicity and Ease of Use 2. Cross-Platform Support 3. Powerful Automation with Worklets 4. Real-Time Visibility and Control 5. Fast and Reliable Cloud-Based Updates 6. Strong Security Focus
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
Implementing Automox successfully starts with a clear strategy for organizing and grouping devices based on operating systems, environments, or business criticality. This ensures that patching and configuration policies can be applied with precision. A phased rollout approach is essential—beginning with a pilot group allows teams to test patching schedules, reboot behaviors, and custom Worklets before scaling across the organization. Leveraging Worklets from the start can significantly boost automation by enforcing security baselines and performing routine system tasks. Integration with existing SOC tools, such as SIEMs, enhances visibility and response time by correlating patch compliance with threat intelligence. Additionally, aligning patching schedules with operational downtimes minimizes disruptions, and consistent monitoring and reporting helps maintain compliance and prepare for audits. Overall, Automox offers a streamlined and effective solution, but its true value is unlocked through thoughtful planning, testing, and integration with existing IT and security workflows.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
We felt that Automox provided us with the functionality our MSP offered, including OS and device patching, as well as remote control capabilities, but in a better and more manageable way. We also felt the usability of the tool gave us the ability to be effective in our way of working, as well as integrating with Rapid7 was a massive benefit for us.
Read full review
Vulcan was easier to implement with our existing Security environment. The UX and UI were more intuitive and user-friendly. While SOAR is a super solid product, for our business Vulcan made more sense. It was more of a natural fit for a rapidly-expanding company in a hyper-growth phase using Edge technology.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Being a start up, we have pivoted our strategies a number of times. The pay as you go model has worked very well for us, and has prevented us from overprovisioning
  • The time saved pulling reports to provide to auditors has been well worth our small spend on the solution
  • We have no need to maintain a scanning tool or invest in hardware thanks to the SaaS nature of Automox
Read full review
  • Allows much better prioritizing of which assets are most vulnerable
  • Allow a better understanding of what assets are actually under real threat vs. what is assumed to be vulnerable, but the real world fact is the system would be hard to reach internally, so it's not as vulnerable.
Read full review
ScreenShots