Naverisk

Name: Naverisk
Brand: Naverisk
Rating: 4.8 (168 reviews)

Slash your costs and simplify service delivery with a powerful, easy to use, all-in-one IT services automation suite.

Est 2007|9 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 732|Web traffic 15K|FTEs 25|HQ Auckland, Auckland, NZ

MarketsIT Service Desk (ITSM)Endpoint Management (UEM)

Published Sep 26, 2026

01Common complaints

If PSA is your primary buying driver
- Community sentiment suggests some MSPs are satisfied with Naverisk RMM but adopt another PSA (a signal the PSA may not be competitive for all workflows).
If you need a large integration marketplace and lots of pre-built “connectors”
- Naverisk lists integrations, but large MSP ecosystems (ConnectWise/Datto) typically offer broader third-party ecosystems.
If you want independently verifiable security posture details without back-and-forth
- SOC 2 Type II is claimed via vendor announcement, but the public evidence set (ISO certs, pen test summaries, security whitepapers) was limited in the sources accessed.
If you’re highly sensitive to patch compliance reporting accuracy
- A reported issue (community) suggests patches may display inconsistent status in some cases; if patch reporting accuracy is mission-critical, validate with a pilot and your device mix.
PSA and project modules fit variability
- Some reviewers report certain modules (e.g., project management / “Cloud Spaces”) are “rather useless” for their needs.
Patch management reporting discrepancies (community reported)
- At least one community report notes patch status inconsistencies (failed state shown when patch is actually installed).
Roadmap/feature delivery uncertainty
- Vendor data protection page notes bare metal recovery was “not yet” included and described as a roadmap item for Q4 2025; without further updated evidence, buyers should confirm whether it shipped and in what form.
Security documentation transparency
- SOC 2 Type II achievement is vendor-announced, but broader security/compliance documentation (ISO, pen tests, subprocessor lists, encryption details) was not readily available in the sources accessed.

- If PSA is your primary buying driver - Community sentiment suggests some MSPs are satisfied with Naverisk RMM but adopt another PSA (a signal the PSA may not be competitive for all workflows). - If you need a large integration marketplace and lots of pre-built “connectors” - Naverisk lists integrations, but large MSP ecosystems (ConnectWise/Datto) typically offer broader third-party ecosystems. - If you want independently verifiable security posture details without back-and-forth - SOC 2 Type II is claimed via vendor announcement, but the public evidence set (ISO certs, pen test summaries, security whitepapers) was limited in the sources accessed. - If you’re highly sensitive to patch compliance reporting accuracy - A reported issue (community) suggests patches may display inconsistent status in some cases; if patch reporting accuracy is mission-critical, validate with a pilot and your device mix. - PSA and project modules fit variability - Some reviewers report certain modules (e.g., project management / “Cloud Spaces”) are “rather useless” for their needs. - Patch management reporting discrepancies (community reported) - At least one community report notes patch status inconsistencies (failed state shown when patch is actually installed). - Roadmap/feature delivery uncertainty - Vendor data protection page notes bare metal recovery was “not yet” included and described as a roadmap item for Q4 2025; without further updated evidence, buyers should confirm whether it shipped and in what form. - Security documentation transparency - SOC 2 Type II achievement is vendor-announced, but broader security/compliance documentation (ISO, pen tests, subprocessor lists, encryption details) was not readily available in the sources accessed.

02Why they buy

Consolidated RMM + Service Desk + PSA bundle at a relatively low published starting price
- “One platform, one price” with entry pricing published.
Deployment choice: Cloud or On-Premise
- This is repeatedly emphasized by the vendor and valued by at least one reviewer.
Data Protection packaging and MSP-oriented backup economics
- Endpoint backups described as free for partners (excluding storage costs).
- Microsoft 365 backup pricing published at $0.50/user (excluding storage costs).
- Caveat: “free” is conditional and storage costs can dominate at scale.
Evidence-backed differentiation vs “marketing-only” claims
- The best-supported differentiators in the accessible sources were:
  - On-prem hosting preference (review)
  - Value/price (reviews)
  - Ongoing release cadence (release notes)

- Consolidated RMM + Service Desk + PSA bundle at a relatively low published starting price - “One platform, one price” with entry pricing published. - Deployment choice: Cloud or On-Premise - This is repeatedly emphasized by the vendor and valued by at least one reviewer. - Data Protection packaging and MSP-oriented backup economics - Endpoint backups described as free for partners (excluding storage costs). - Microsoft 365 backup pricing published at $0.50/user (excluding storage costs). - Caveat: “free” is conditional and storage costs can dominate at scale. - Evidence-backed differentiation vs “marketing-only” claims - The best-supported differentiators in the accessible sources were: - On-prem hosting preference (review) - Value/price (reviews) - Ongoing release cadence (release notes)

Why customers chose Naverisk (common themes)

Consolidation / stack simplification
- Vendor messaging: replace multiple tools (RMM + PSA + service desk) with one suite.
- Customer messaging (reviews): value and breadth of included features.
Deployment flexibility
- “Locally hosted” is explicitly valued by at least one G2 reviewer, suggesting Naverisk’s on-prem/self-host option is a differentiator versus cloud-only RMMs.
Support availability
- Vendor emphasizes 24/7 support.
- Some reviews mention strong support and responsiveness.

- Consolidation / stack simplification - Vendor messaging: replace multiple tools (RMM + PSA + service desk) with one suite. - Customer messaging (reviews): value and breadth of included features. - Deployment flexibility - “Locally hosted” is explicitly valued by at least one G2 reviewer, suggesting Naverisk’s on-prem/self-host option is a differentiator versus cloud-only RMMs. - Support availability - Vendor emphasizes 24/7 support. - Some reviews mention strong support and responsiveness.

03Field reports

Public case studies with quantified ROI
- No independently verified ROI case studies were retrieved in the sources accessed.
Vendor-published outcome claims
- Naverisk’s website and marketing pages emphasize cost reduction via tool consolidation and improved MSP efficiency through automation.
- Critical evaluation:
  - Claims are plausible but largely unaccompanied by transparent methodology (sample size, baseline tooling, labor cost assumptions).
Product releases indicating investment areas (proxy for roadmap execution)
- Release notes / KB posts indicate ongoing development:
  - Naverisk 2026 R2 introduces “Data Hub” with query builder, query library, CSV export, and UI/grid improvements.
  - Naverisk 2026 R1 mentions a new 64-bit Windows Agent for performance/stability.
- Interpretation:
  - These updates suggest focus on reporting/data access and agent modernization—common pain points in RMM platforms.

- Public case studies with quantified ROI - No independently verified ROI case studies were retrieved in the sources accessed. - Vendor-published outcome claims - Naverisk’s website and marketing pages emphasize cost reduction via tool consolidation and improved MSP efficiency through automation. - Critical evaluation: - Claims are plausible but largely unaccompanied by transparent methodology (sample size, baseline tooling, labor cost assumptions). - Product releases indicating investment areas (proxy for roadmap execution) - Release notes / KB posts indicate ongoing development: - Naverisk 2026 R2 introduces “Data Hub” with query builder, query library, CSV export, and UI/grid improvements. - Naverisk 2026 R1 mentions a new 64-bit Windows Agent for performance/stability. - Interpretation: - These updates suggest focus on reporting/data access and agent modernization—common pain points in RMM platforms.

Review-platform sentiment (G2 and Capterra)

G2 snapshot
- Rating shown: 4.7/5 with 72 reviews (as crawled).
- Positive example (G2, 5/5):
  - “Fully Featured, Stable, and Highly Reliable” (review title).
  - “The product is fully featured, stable and highly reliable… interface is quite intuitive… minimal training.”
- Minor/constructive criticism example (G2, 5/5 but with a dislike noted):
  - “GUI can be improved…”
- Important limitation of available G2 excerpts in this crawl:
  - The visible sample was skewed toward positive reviews; fewer low-star critiques were accessible in the snippets retrieved.
Capterra snapshot
- Rating shown: 4.8/5 with 97 reviews; last updated shown as March 13, 2026.
- Positive example (Capterra):
  - “Their RMM & PSA solution offers excellent value per seat…”
- Mixed/critical example (Capterra, 4/5):
  - “While there were bumps in the road and the software was not always the best or without issues, they have always been worked out…”
- Feature criticism example (Capterra):
  - “Project Management and Cloud Spaces modules, both are rather useless to us.”
- Security-related perception (Capterra; user opinion, not an audit):
  - “we have always felt confident that Naverisk is a very secure system because we’ve not had any security issues…”

- G2 snapshot - Rating shown: **4.7/5** with **72 reviews** (as crawled). - Positive example (G2, 5/5): - “Fully Featured, Stable, and Highly Reliable” (review title). - “The product is fully featured, stable and highly reliable… interface is quite intuitive… minimal training.” - Minor/constructive criticism example (G2, 5/5 but with a dislike noted): - “GUI can be improved…” - Important limitation of available G2 excerpts in this crawl: - The visible sample was skewed toward positive reviews; fewer low-star critiques were accessible in the snippets retrieved. - Capterra snapshot - Rating shown: **4.8/5** with **97 reviews**; last updated shown as March 13, 2026. - Positive example (Capterra): - “Their RMM & PSA solution offers excellent value per seat…” - Mixed/critical example (Capterra, 4/5): - “While there were bumps in the road and the software was not always the best or without issues, they have always been worked out…” - Feature criticism example (Capterra): - “Project Management and Cloud Spaces modules, both are rather useless to us.” - Security-related perception (Capterra; user opinion, not an audit): - “we have always felt confident that Naverisk is a very secure system because we’ve not had any security issues…”

Community (Reddit) sentiment

General RMM/PSA fit
- Some MSPs describe Naverisk as “solid” for RMM but less compelling for PSA, depending on needs.
- Example (Reddit r/msp, paraphrased from accessible snippet context): users reporting they used Naverisk as RMM while choosing a separate PSA (e.g., Freshservice).
PSA viability concerns
- Recurrent theme: PSA module may be “not what we needed” (even when RMM was satisfactory), prompting mixed-stack approaches.
Patch management reliability concern
- Example (Reddit r/it): a user reports Naverisk showing patches in a failed state even though manual verification shows patching successful (“inconsistent errors”).

- General RMM/PSA fit - Some MSPs describe Naverisk as “solid” for RMM but less compelling for PSA, depending on needs. - Example (Reddit r/msp, paraphrased from accessible snippet context): users reporting they used Naverisk as RMM while choosing a separate PSA (e.g., Freshservice). - PSA viability concerns - Recurrent theme: PSA module may be “not what we needed” (even when RMM was satisfactory), prompting mixed-stack approaches. - Patch management reliability concern - Example (Reddit r/it): a user reports Naverisk showing patches in a failed state even though manual verification shows patching successful (“inconsistent errors”).

Why some customers didn’t fully adopt (or used alternatives)

PSA shortcomings for certain workflows
- Multiple Reddit comments suggest keeping Naverisk for RMM but selecting another PSA.
UX/UI gaps
- “GUI can be improved” appears in G2 review content; this is a common issue category for long-tenured MSP tooling: functional breadth but older UX patterns.

04Best fit

Company sizes (practical fit ranges)
- MSPs with:
  - 2–50 technicians
  - Managing tens to several thousand endpoints
- Internal IT teams:
  - ~50–2,000 employees (especially if they want RMM + ticketing with limited integration complexity)
Industries and verticals
- MSPs serving SMB and mid-market across general verticals.
- No strong single-vertical specialization was evident in the sources accessed.
Roles and personas
- Decision makers
  - MSP owner / CTO
  - IT director
  - Service delivery manager
- End users
  - Helpdesk technicians
  - NOC/operations staff
  - Billing/ops staff if PSA is used for invoicing/time
Pain points addressed
- Tool sprawl (multiple tools for monitoring, ticketing, billing)
- Automation needs (scripts, policy-based monitoring)
- Remote support and patching at scale
- Desire to self-host for tighter control (for some MSPs)
Qualification criteria (great fit)
- You want an all-in-one suite and will accept “good enough PSA” rather than best-of-breed PSA.
- You value on-prem/self-host optionality.
- You have technical capacity to configure monitoring policies, automation routines, and reporting.
Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)
- You require an enterprise-grade PSA with very mature project management, procurement, and advanced billing workflows.
- You want a very modern, highly guided UI with minimal configuration.
- You require publicly documented ISO certifications and detailed security documentation without NDA (not evident from the public sources accessed).

- Company sizes (practical fit ranges) - MSPs with: - 2–50 technicians - Managing tens to several thousand endpoints - Internal IT teams: - ~50–2,000 employees (especially if they want RMM + ticketing with limited integration complexity) - Industries and verticals - MSPs serving SMB and mid-market across general verticals. - No strong single-vertical specialization was evident in the sources accessed. - Roles and personas - Decision makers - MSP owner / CTO - IT director - Service delivery manager - End users - Helpdesk technicians - NOC/operations staff - Billing/ops staff if PSA is used for invoicing/time - Pain points addressed - Tool sprawl (multiple tools for monitoring, ticketing, billing) - Automation needs (scripts, policy-based monitoring) - Remote support and patching at scale - Desire to self-host for tighter control (for some MSPs) - Qualification criteria (great fit) - You want an all-in-one suite and will accept “good enough PSA” rather than best-of-breed PSA. - You value on-prem/self-host optionality. - You have technical capacity to configure monitoring policies, automation routines, and reporting. - Deal disqualifiers (poor fit) - You require an enterprise-grade PSA with very mature project management, procurement, and advanced billing workflows. - You want a very modern, highly guided UI with minimal configuration. - You require publicly documented ISO certifications and detailed security documentation without NDA (not evident from the public sources accessed).

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)
- Naverisk positions itself as an all-in-one platform for managed service providers (MSPs) and internal IT teams that combines:
  - RMM (remote monitoring & management)
  - Service Desk / ticketing
  - PSA (professional services automation)
  - Backup / data protection capabilities
- The vendor messaging emphasizes consolidating multiple tools into one platform to reduce integration burden and cost, with deployment options that include cloud and on-premise.
Target market and market positioning
- Primary target: MSPs and IT service providers managing multiple customer environments.
- Secondary target: Internal IT teams (SMB/mid-market) looking for RMM + service desk functions.
- Positioning themes:
  - “One platform / one price” bundle approach
  - “Cloud or on-premise” security model choice
  - “Free/low-cost backup” as a differentiator (subject to storage costs and eligibility)
Company background (founding year, HQ, key leadership)
- Publicly accessible material on Naverisk’s site describes origins as a response to frustrations with using multiple tools, but does not clearly present (in the pages accessed for this report) a standardized “founded in YEAR / HQ in CITY / leadership list” fact set.
- A notable historical event: founder Jon Kalaugher reacquired (“bought back”) Naverisk (announced in a vendor post, and echoed by a channel publication).
Funding and growth: investment rounds, acquisitions, estimated customer count/revenue if public
- Naverisk marketing materials claim it is “trusted by 1000’s of MSPs & IT Teams” (this is a marketing claim and not independently validated in the sources accessed).
- No clear, verifiable, public funding history (rounds/amounts) was found in the sources accessed for this report.
- Ownership history note:
  - “Founder buys back Naverisk” is described by Naverisk and covered by ChannelE2E (historical; 2017–2018 timeframe).
Pricing model with specific tiers and costs where available
- Naverisk publishes a starting price on its pricing page:
  - “Starting at $110.00 per month” (vendor-published).
- Promotional/limited-time language was present:
  - “Free M365 and device backups if you join the Naverisk community before June 30th 2026” (vendor-published; time-bound).
- Data protection pricing details (vendor-published):
  - Endpoint/data backups described as “free for Naverisk partners” but excludes Wasabi storage costs.
  - Microsoft 365 backups: “$0.50 USD per user” excluding Wasabi storage costs.
- Third-party pricing aggregators list different numbers than Naverisk’s own pricing page (common across software directories; treat as secondary):
  - G2 pricing page has listed a monthly price point (example shown in crawl: $129/month).
Total cost of ownership (TCO) considerations (implementation, training, hidden costs)
- Likely cost components beyond “starting at” subscription:
  - Backup storage costs (explicitly excluded for Wasabi-based storage)
  - Optional third-party integrations (remote control, AV/EDR, PSA integrations, accounting)
  - On-premise hosting costs if you self-host (infrastructure + backup + patching + DB maintenance)
  - Staff time for automation/monitoring policy design, patch baselines, and routine creation
- Reviews suggest Naverisk can have “quick time to value” for some deployments, but other users describe a more technical platform that may not suit teams looking for a highly opinionated, guided UI.
Key competitors in the space (list 4-6 direct alternatives)
- NinjaOne
- ConnectWise RMM (and broader ConnectWise platform)
- Datto RMM
- N-able (N-central / N-able RMM)
- Atera
- Syncro

- What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms) - Naverisk positions itself as an all-in-one platform for managed service providers (MSPs) and internal IT teams that combines: - RMM (remote monitoring & management) - Service Desk / ticketing - PSA (professional services automation) - Backup / data protection capabilities - The vendor messaging emphasizes consolidating multiple tools into one platform to reduce integration burden and cost, with deployment options that include cloud and on-premise. - Target market and market positioning - Primary target: MSPs and IT service providers managing multiple customer environments. - Secondary target: Internal IT teams (SMB/mid-market) looking for RMM + service desk functions. - Positioning themes: - “One platform / one price” bundle approach - “Cloud or on-premise” security model choice - “Free/low-cost backup” as a differentiator (subject to storage costs and eligibility) - Company background (founding year, HQ, key leadership) - Publicly accessible material on Naverisk’s site describes origins as a response to frustrations with using multiple tools, but does not clearly present (in the pages accessed for this report) a standardized “founded in YEAR / HQ in CITY / leadership list” fact set. - A notable historical event: founder Jon Kalaugher reacquired (“bought back”) Naverisk (announced in a vendor post, and echoed by a channel publication). - Funding and growth: investment rounds, acquisitions, estimated customer count/revenue if public - Naverisk marketing materials claim it is “trusted by 1000’s of MSPs & IT Teams” (this is a marketing claim and not independently validated in the sources accessed). - No clear, verifiable, public funding history (rounds/amounts) was found in the sources accessed for this report. - Ownership history note: - “Founder buys back Naverisk” is described by Naverisk and covered by ChannelE2E (historical; 2017–2018 timeframe). - Pricing model with specific tiers and costs where available - Naverisk publishes a starting price on its pricing page: - “Starting at $110.00 per month” (vendor-published). - Promotional/limited-time language was present: - “Free M365 and device backups if you join the Naverisk community before June 30th 2026” (vendor-published; time-bound). - Data protection pricing details (vendor-published): - Endpoint/data backups described as “free for Naverisk partners” but excludes Wasabi storage costs. - Microsoft 365 backups: “$0.50 USD per user” excluding Wasabi storage costs. - Third-party pricing aggregators list different numbers than Naverisk’s own pricing page (common across software directories; treat as secondary): - G2 pricing page has listed a monthly price point (example shown in crawl: $129/month). - Total cost of ownership (TCO) considerations (implementation, training, hidden costs) - Likely cost components beyond “starting at” subscription: - Backup storage costs (explicitly excluded for Wasabi-based storage) - Optional third-party integrations (remote control, AV/EDR, PSA integrations, accounting) - On-premise hosting costs if you self-host (infrastructure + backup + patching + DB maintenance) - Staff time for automation/monitoring policy design, patch baselines, and routine creation - Reviews suggest Naverisk can have “quick time to value” for some deployments, but other users describe a more technical platform that may not suit teams looking for a highly opinionated, guided UI. - Key competitors in the space (list 4-6 direct alternatives) - NinjaOne - ConnectWise RMM (and broader ConnectWise platform) - Datto RMM - N-able (N-central / N-able RMM) - Atera - Syncro

Get a comprehensive analysis of Naverisk including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →