Patch Management for MSPs: Challenges, Maturity, and Why It Defines Client Trust

Patch management is one of those responsibilities that rarely gets attention when it works, and instantly becomes a business problem when it fails. For managed service providers, patching sits at the intersection of security, operations, compliance, and client trust. It affects everything from ransomware risk to contract renewals and service tier pricing.

As MSPs grow, the way they handle patching often determines whether they remain a reactive support shop or evolve into a security and risk management partner for their clients.

This guide breaks down the real challenges MSPs face with patch management, how established and growing providers handle it differently, and why it plays such a central role in long-term growth and client retention.

‍

The Real Patch Management Challenges MSPs Face

1) Incomplete Asset Visibility

You cannot patch what you cannot see. Many MSPs struggle to maintain a real-time, accurate inventory of endpoints across multiple clients. Remote workers, personal devices, offline systems, and shadow IT frequently fall outside standard patch workflows.

When asset data is outdated, patching policies become guesswork.

Impact:
Security gaps, audit failures, and unreliable compliance reporting.

‍

2) Testing vs Speed Tradeoff

Patches need to be tested before deployment, especially in environments running custom or legacy applications. At the same time, delaying updates increases exposure to known vulnerabilities.

This forces MSPs to constantly balance stability and security.

Impact:
Either production outages caused by bad patches or increased risk from slow deployment.

‍

3) Bandwidth and Performance Constraints

Large operating system and application updates can overwhelm client networks, particularly in remote offices or work-from-home setups. Users often notice slower connections or dropped sessions during patch windows.

Impact:
Failed deployments, frustrated users, and negative client feedback.

‍

4) Legacy Systems and Compatibility

Many clients still rely on older operating systems or custom-built applications that do not support modern patches. These systems often require manual exceptions or alternative security controls.

Impact:
High-risk endpoints that remain permanently unpatched.

‍

5) Lack of Automation and Scheduling

Manual patching does not scale. As the number of endpoints grows, coordinating maintenance windows across time zones, industries, and device types becomes increasingly complex.

Impact:
Higher labor costs and inconsistent coverage across clients.

‍

6) User Resistance and Downtime Concerns

Reboots and update prompts interrupt workflows. End users delay or cancel patches, especially on remote or personally owned devices.

Impact:
Lower compliance rates and longer exposure windows for vulnerabilities.

‍

7) Reporting and Compliance Gaps

Many MSPs struggle to produce clear, client-facing patch reports. Tools often provide raw technical data instead of business-friendly compliance summaries.

Impact:
Time-consuming audits and reduced confidence from decision makers.

‍

8) Third-Party Application Patching

Operating systems are only part of the risk. Browsers, PDF readers, collaboration tools, and line-of-business applications often require separate patch workflows.

Impact:
Increased attack surface and more complex management.

‍

9) Change Management Disconnect

Patching is frequently handled outside formal change management processes. This makes it harder to track approvals, document rollbacks, and investigate incidents tied to recent updates.

Impact:
Poor documentation and unclear root cause analysis after outages.

‍

10) Scaling Across Growing Environments

As MSPs onboard more clients, endpoint counts multiply quickly. Without standardized policies and templates, each new client introduces exceptions and manual work.

Impact:
Tool sprawl, inconsistent policies, and rising operational overhead.

‍

Established MSPs vs Growing MSPs: How Patch Management Maturity Shows

The biggest difference between a growing MSP and an established one is not the tools they use. It is how they think about patching as part of their business model.

‍

1) Strategy and Mindset

Established MSPs
Patching is treated as a service standard tied to security posture and compliance outcomes. Policies are defined by client risk level, industry, and regulatory exposure.

• Formal maintenance windows
• Security-driven prioritization
• Documented service-level expectations

Growing MSPs
Patching is often reactive and client-driven.

• Updates run after incidents or complaints
• Few formal policies
• Focused on uptime rather than risk reduction

‍

2) Tools and Automation

Established MSPs
Use layered automation through their RMM and endpoint management stack.

• Automated OS and third-party patching
• Staged rollouts with pilot groups
• Approval workflows and rollback planning

Growing MSPs
Rely on basic configurations.

• Manual approvals
• One-size-fits-all schedules
• Limited third-party coverage

This is often where platforms like Level are introduced organically. Instead of stitching together multiple tools, MSPs start looking for a simpler, automation-first way to manage patching, monitoring, and endpoint visibility in one place.

‍

3) Client Segmentation

Established MSPs
Segment clients based on risk, compliance, and business criticality.

• Healthcare and finance follow stricter rules
• Low-risk clients allow broader automation
• Different reboot and downtime policies per tier

Growing MSPs
Apply the same patch policy to everyone.

• Same window for all clients
• Same rules regardless of industry

‍

4) Testing and Validation

Established MSPs
Use formal pilot groups and documentation.

• Known conflicts tracked by client type
• Change records tied to deployments
• Rollback processes defined in advance

Growing MSPs
Testing is minimal.

• Depend on vendor release notes
• Discover issues through support tickets

‍

5) Reporting and Compliance

Established MSPs
Treat reporting as part of the service they sell.

• Monthly compliance summaries
• Patch SLAs
• Audit-ready dashboards

Growing MSPs
Reporting is internal.

• Basic patched or not views
• Shared only when requested

This is often a turning point where MSPs start looking for tools that can turn technical data into client-friendly reports, rather than raw logs.

‍

6) Client Communication

Established MSPs
Position patching as risk management.

• Business impact explained clearly
• Security and compliance tied to outcomes

Growing MSPs
Position patching as maintenance.

• Focus on minimizing disruption
• Less emphasis on long-term security posture

‍

7) Scaling Approach

Established MSPs
Build with growth in mind.

• Client onboarding templates
• Standardized policies by service tier
• Automation-first mindset

Growing MSPs
Scaling increases friction.

• Each new client adds manual work
• Exceptions accumulate
• Processes live in people’s heads, not documentation

‍

Why Patch Management Is Critical for MSPs

Patch management is not just a technical task. It directly affects an MSP’s reputation, legal exposure, and revenue model.

‍

1) Security Impact

Most cyber incidents exploit known vulnerabilities. Systems that remain unpatched are easy targets.

What this means for MSPs:
Every missed patch increases the chance of a breach that clients will hold the MSP responsible for.

‍

2) Business Trust and Retention

Clients may not understand patching, but they understand downtime, data loss, and failed audits.

What this means for MSPs:
Clear patch reporting and consistent outcomes build long-term trust with decision makers.

‍

3) Compliance and Contract Risk

Industries like healthcare, finance, and education often require proof of system maintenance.

What this means for MSPs:
Patch records can determine whether a contract is renewed or lost.

‍

4) Operational Efficiency

Manual patching creates constant fire drills.

What this means for MSPs:
Automation reduces technician workload and turns patching into a predictable process instead of an emergency response.

‍

5) Revenue Positioning

Mature MSPs package patch management as part of a broader security and compliance offering.

What this means for MSPs:
This supports higher pricing tiers and positions the MSP as a strategic partner instead of a break-fix provider.

‍

The Role of Simplicity in Patch Maturity

As MSPs grow, many discover that complexity becomes the real enemy. Multiple disconnected tools, fragmented reporting, and inconsistent policies make it harder to scale.

This is where platforms like Level tend to fit naturally into the conversation. Not as a feature checklist, but as a way to simplify endpoint visibility, automation, and patch workflows so teams can spend less time managing tools and more time managing outcomes.

For many MSPs, the shift is not about adding more technology. It is about making their existing processes easier to repeat, easier to explain to clients, and easier to scale.

‍

Summary: What This Means in Practice

The biggest difference between growing and established MSPs is how they treat patch management.

• Growing MSPs see patching as a technical task.
• Established MSPs see patching as a business capability.

Once patching becomes tied to client trust, compliance, and service value, it evolves into a structured, automated, and measurable process rather than a background chore.

‍

Bottom Line

Patch management defines how professional an MSP looks to its clients. It influences security risk, legal exposure, operational efficiency, and long-term revenue stability.

The MSPs that scale successfully are the ones that turn patching into a repeatable, client-facing service, not just an internal process.‍