We performed a comparison between Atera and GFI LanGuard based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Patch Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I really like the Shared Script Library and automation tasks which they have implemented... because all the Atera users in the community can share their scripts and their automation tasks knowledge. The same goes for the Shared SNMP Template Library."
"We value the alerts that come with the product which allow me to reach out to my clients. Overall, Atera generates additional revenue streams for work done on their machines."
"Pricing is definitely my favorite part of it. It is also extremely easy to use."
"Atera has helped me to provide more accurate solutions based on a given problem. For example, we base our solutions on event scenarios, like the alerts. We identify that there's a series of problems occurring in a particular area from the information provided by the alerts."
"Atera has saved our organization money. We look at Atera as an extra employee that we only pay about $300 a month. This is incredible savings over having to hire somebody to do all the tasks that Atera performs for us."
"Atera saves money. A trip to the customer costs between $20 to $30. Then, you need to charge the customer $20 to $30 for the travel. However, if you are doing this work remotely, then you are not driving. This makes the process easier and saves money for you and the customer. For example, if it is just one machine, then the savings comes out to $50 to $60. If we are talking about a huge client, who has hundreds of machines and is changing their infrastructure, that is a lot of money."
"I would say it's the number one tool for all ITMS."
"All of the features of Atera are valuable because they allow the customers to achieve their goals. It is easy to use, has good collaboration, and has zero maintenance."
"This product is a great solution at a great price as long as it is only going to be used for a local area network."
"It is helpful to patch and scan vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature of GFI LanGuard is its email spam feature."
"The most valuable feature is that I am able to patch third-party solutions."
"I like that the solution can block users from unnecessarily putting devices on the network."
"The most valuable features of GFI LanGuard are the vulnerability assessment, it provides us with substantial insight into what applications are running on the endpoint systems and what vulnerabilities are there in the running applications. The second would be the assets tracking. I'm able to see in the network whether my endpoint server is operating and if all the other IT equipment is running in the environment. Additionally, GFI LanGuard is not heavy on system resources. It gives a competitive advantage over others."
"The initial setup was easy."
"The most useful features of GFI LanGuard are vulnerability assessment and patching solutions."
"Having more freedom to perform identity access management would be great."
"I also use Apple Zoho, which does not require you to download anything. You can get help from Zoho. Atera, on the other hand, requires you to download an applet."
"Customization could be improved."
"The solution is scalable. However, in the past, we did have some issues."
"They are working on an update, and I would like to see more stuff outside of just computers and servers. Increasingly, we need to be able to monitor and manage network devices. Atera is improving on that already, which is one place that it is currently lacking."
"I would like to see more mobile device management. iPad is a big one. I know they've been working on some of that. For me, it would be amazing if I could do tablet devices and even expand it to POS systems or the like. I know that a lot goes into that but I've seen it is an area they're looking at."
"The one thing that could do with improvement is the reporting. This is from someone who worked in an MSP, where I would want to run a report and be able to just present that to a client."
"The billing module has a standard layout which is too limited for my needs."
"This solution is limited to the local area network only and cannot manage remote devices."
"If GFI LanGuard had a cloud version it would be better for people that are working from home."
"GFI LanGuard can improve by adding more modules, such as asset control or asset inventory."
"When you want to uninstall software from an endpoint, sometimes it becomes very problematic."
"GFI LanGuard has some technical limitations with machines."
"The documentation on how to use this solution in a Linux environment is not clear, which is something that should be improved because it is complicated."
"The version we are using only allows one person to use it at a time and does not allow multi-users."
"GFI LanGuard could improve the rollback feature. If we have installed the wrong we have had some issues with the rollback function. Additionally, more input from GFI LanGuard for the custom software push install."
Earn 20 points
Atera is ranked 10th in Patch Management while GFI LanGuard is ranked 9th in Patch Management with 10 reviews. Atera is rated 9.2, while GFI LanGuard is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Atera writes "Pay just one price for unlimited devices and remote features enable easy access to all end points regardless of their location". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GFI LanGuard writes "A scalable, competitively priced solution with a good ROI and easy setup process ". Atera is most compared with NinjaOne, Datto Remote Monitoring and Management, N-able N-central, Microsoft Configuration Manager and SuperOps.ai, whereas GFI LanGuard is most compared with ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Ivanti Patch for Endpoint Manager and BigFix. See our Atera vs. GFI LanGuard report.
See our list of best Patch Management vendors.
We monitor all Patch Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.