Patch management keeps systems secure, clients protected, and services running without interruption. But it’s also a moving target, shaped by shifting threats, evolving tools, and rising client expectations. From automation and compliance to tool selection and deployment speed, the way managed service providers (MSPs) manage patching tells us a lot about how they work, what they value, and where they see the biggest roadblocks.
To get a detailed look at how patch management is currently being handled, we used AI-driven audience profiling to synthesize insights from online opinions over a year ending March 3, 2025, to a high statistical confidence level. Our audience comprised 22,295 MSPs across the US, and their opinions tell us much about the platforms, processes, and priorities shaping patching strategies in 2025.
What Metrics Do You Use To Measure The Success Of Your Patch Management Process?
63% US MSPs track support tickets as their primary metric
The way success is measured reveals what teams value and where they feel the pressure:
Almost 63% of MSPs in the US rely on support ticket volume to gauge how well their patching process is performing. Fewer tickets mean fewer disruptions, and that’s the clearest sign systems are working as they should. A support ticket usually signals that a user has experienced an issue serious enough to report, making it a reactive metric by nature.
By contrast, the over 37% who track a crucial business metric are likely using more proactive indicators. These likely include patch management metrics such as mean time to patch (MTTP), mean time to remediate (MTTR), or rate of occurrence. The shift toward outcome-focused metrics points to a growing emphasis on preventing problems rather than just responding to them.
What Types Of Patches Do You Manage Most Frequently?
Security patches are the primary focus for 84% MSPs
The type of patch MSPs prioritize says a lot about what’s driving their day-to-day operations:
Just under 84% of MSPs say security patches dominate their patching workload, and for good reason. These updates fix known vulnerabilities in software and operating systems, often under tight timelines and constant threat pressure. In fact, unpatched vulnerabilities are responsible for 60% of cyber compromises, making this kind of patching not just routine but critical.
Firmware patches, on the other hand, make up just over 16%. They apply to the software embedded in hardware devices, like servers, routers, and printers, and usually come with more risk, more complexity, and less urgency. The gap isn’t surprising. Day to day, MSPs are in the business of keeping systems secure and stable, not performing low-level hardware tuning.
How Do You Currently Monitor Patch Status And Performance Post Deployment?
52% MSPs say third-party tools are effective for monitoring patch status and performance
The effectiveness of post-deployment monitoring tools plays a critical role in closing the loop on any patching process. Here’s how our audience measures their effectiveness:
Just over 52% of our audience of MSPs say their third-party patch monitoring tools are doing the job well, providing the visibility and reporting needed to track success. These tools typically confirm whether patches were installed correctly, flag failed deployments, and help MSPs monitor post-patch stability. However, that leaves 48% who find their tools inadequate, pointing to blind spots, limited functionality, or a lack of confidence in post-deployment performance.
That lack of visibility comes with real consequences. A Ponemon Institute study shows that 60% of breach victims say they were compromised due to an unpatched known vulnerability where the patch had not been applied. Without reliable monitoring, teams may assume systems are protected when they’re still exposed. This near-even split suggests many MSPs are still searching for tools that can deploy patches, confirm they’ve landed cleanly, and verify they stay that way.
How Do You Ensure Patch Compliance Across Multiple Client Systems?
56% MSPs rely on manual tracking for patch compliance
Maintaining compliance across a diverse client base takes more than just applying patches. It requires proof.
Just over 56% of MSPs rely on manual tracking to ensure patch compliance, using spreadsheets, checklists, or custom tools to stay on top of updates. However, as environments grow, this approach can become reactive and siloed. It’s also overly reliant on fragmented tools that don’t scale well. That may help explain why almost 44% now use detailed compliance reports, often generated by patch management platforms, to get real-time insights and audit-ready documentation.
This split speaks to a tradeoff between control and efficiency. Some prefer the hands-on approach, while others trust automation to deliver the visibility they need. In either case, compliance is front and center, and proving it matters just as much as achieving it.
How Important Is Patch Management Automation In Your Service Delivery?
Patch management automation is very important for 49% MSPs
MSPs are placing increasing value on automation as they refine their patching workflows:
Almost 49% of US-based MSPs say patch management automation is very important to their service delivery. Another 48% describe it as extremely important, while just over 3% call it crucial. Taken together, that’s an overwhelming level of agreement. As client environments grow more complex and patch cycles speed up, automation is quickly becoming a requirement rather than a luxury. It reduces human error, shortens response times, and frees up valuable technician hours.
Recent research into AI-powered patching reflects this momentum. A 2025 Research Gate study found that using artificial intelligence to guide vulnerability assessment and patch deployment helps teams act faster, prioritize effectively, and improve accuracy at scale.
As patch volumes grow and environments become more complex, this kind of intelligent automation is becoming a core part of how patching gets done. It’s a smarter, more scalable way to deliver consistent results.
What Are Your Biggest Challenges In Managing Patch Deployment?
54% MSPs feel lack of automation is the top challenge in managing patch deployment
Managing the deployment of patches may be routine, but it still presents a range of challenges across tools, teams, and client environments:
Almost 54% of MSPs say the lack of automation is their single biggest challenge. Patching still demands hands-on work in many environments, and that slows everything down, from detection to deployment. According to a new study from Ivanti, 71% of IT and security professionals find patching time-consuming and overly complex. Clearly, manual workflows are still holding teams back, especially as patch volumes and urgency increase.
Roughly 35% point to patch testing and compatibility issues. Before a patch can be rolled out, it needs to be tested, and in client environments with mixed devices and configurations, that’s no small task. Ivanti’s findings reinforce this, noting that cross-system compatibility is one of the most common sticking points in modern patching.
Over 7% of MSPs identify client system downtime as their top concern. Even small interruptions can cause ripple effects for clients, especially in sectors that run 24/7 or rely on uninterrupted access. More than 4% cite scheduling conflicts, a reminder that deployment planning still takes up valuable time, especially when multiple client environments, maintenance windows, and compliance requirements need to align.
These aren’t edge cases. They reflect the real-world pressures that MSPs navigate every day. And across every challenge, automation remains the common thread. The more repeatable and predictable patching becomes, the more capacity teams have to focus on outcomes instead of obstacles.
What Future Trends Do You Foresee Influencing Patch Management?
70% MSPs predict future trends will complicate patch management processes
MSPs are already thinking ahead, and opinions vary on what the next wave of patch management will look like:
Almost 70% of our audience believes future trends will complicate processes. That response signals growing concern around the direction in which patching is heading. More systems, tighter regulations, and a constantly shifting threat landscape are all adding pressure.
What was once a routine task is evolving into something far more intricate and strategic, and many teams expect the complexity to keep growing. These themes echo broader industry thinking on patch management trends, highlighting the growing role of threat intelligence, real-time monitoring, and vendor coordination as MSPs must now manage new layers.
That said, over 19% believe new developments will enhance efficiency, pointing to automation, centralized platforms, and more intelligent workflows as a way forward. Organizations are already leaning into automation to reduce exposure windows and cut down manual workloads. Artificial intelligence and machine learning are playing a bigger role in this shift, helping to analyze patch histories, predict vulnerabilities, and fine-tune deployment schedules across diverse systems.
11% anticipate zero-touch improvement, suggesting confidence in fully automated systems that can detect, validate, and apply patches without manual input. There is a move toward risk-based patching, where critical vulnerabilities are automatically prioritized based on potential impact and system importance. For MSPs managing large and complex environments, that kind of decision-making speed is essential, and it’s helping pave the way for hands-free patching in the near future.
These expectations reflect two very different views of the road ahead. Whether patching becomes more difficult or more seamless will likely depend on how quickly MSPs can adopt the tools and practices that help simplify it.
What Tools Or Platforms Do You Use For Patch Management?
Kayesa is the preferred path management tool for 28% MSPs
MSPs rely on a mix of commercial platforms and internal solutions to manage patching at scale:
Over 28% of MSPs in our data use Kaseya, putting it at the top of the list. That’s a strong showing for a platform built around centralized control, automation, and multi-tenant visibility. Roughly 24% rely on NinjaOne, which is valued for its clean interface and automation-first design.
Just behind, at just over 21% use custom internal tools, which suggests commercial platforms don’t always align with specific workflows or client requirements. Homegrown systems can offer tighter integration and more flexibility, especially for teams that need to stitch patching into a broader stack.
ConnectWise is used by almost 19%, reflecting its appeal as a full-service platform for MSPs who want patching tightly linked with ticketing and remote monitoring. Only a little over 7% use ManageEngine, which is a surprisingly modest showing given that it ranked above NinjaOne in TechTarget’s 12 best patch management software and tools for 2025.
Where In The USA is Your Company Primarily Based?
49% MSPs are based in the Pacific region
Regional distribution reveals where most of our audience of MSPs are operating from and where opportunity may be growing:
Almost 49% of MSPs in our data are based in the Pacific region, making it by far the most represented area. That concentration mirrors the region’s deep roots in tech, with a high concentration of digital-first businesses that depend heavily on managed IT support.
The South Atlantic comes next at over 15%. This aligns with recent economic shifts, as the six fast-growing states in the South, including Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas, are now contributing more to the national GDP than the Northeast. That kind of momentum creates fertile ground for MSP growth, particularly among SMBs looking to scale.
Almost 10% are based in the West North Central region, suggesting a steady MSP presence across central states where in-house IT resources might be hard to find.
New England and the Mid-Atlantic represent over 8% and 7% of MSPs respectively. Both regions are home to established business hubs, where MSPs likely remain a trusted partner for managing IT systems and keeping operations running smoothly.
The rest of the spread includes East North Central at almost 6%, Mountain and West South Central at just over 2% each, and East South Central at less than 1%, rounding out a national footprint that’s wide but less concentrated beyond the top regions.
In summary, the data from MSPs across the US tells us that shifting priorities, practical challenges, and growing demand for efficiency are currently shaping patch management. Automation stands out as a recurring theme, along with the need for better tools, smoother integrations, and clearer reporting. From compliance tracking to platform choice, approaches vary widely, but the goal is consistent: a patching process that’s faster, smarter, and easier to manage.
Methodology
The opinions in this article were sourced from 22,295 responses from managed service providers in the USA via X, Reddit, Bluesky, TikTok, and LinkedIn. The responses are collected within a 65% confidence interval and a 17% margin of error. Engagement estimates how many people in the location are participating. Results are based on what people describe online — questions were not posed to the people in the sample.
About the representative sample:
- 66% of MSP professionals are over 35 and under 64 years of age
- 51% identify as female.
- 42% earn between $500,000 to $1 million annually.
