Comparison
Managed vs unmanaged hosting
The real difference isn't features — it's who is responsible for the operating system when something goes wrong at 2am. Managed hosting means ScodyX carries that responsibility; unmanaged means you do, in exchange for full root access.
Side by side
How they compare
| Dimension | Managed Hosting | Cloud VPS |
|---|---|---|
| Access level | Control panel — no shell access required | Full root over a KVM virtual machine |
| OS & stack patching | Applied by ScodyX on a maintenance schedule | Your responsibility entirely |
| Software you can install | Whatever the panel and stack support | Anything — you own the kernel |
| Backups | Automated, included | Snapshots available, schedule is yours to set |
| Best skill fit | No in-house sysadmin | Comfortable administering Linux |
| Failure mode | We get paged first | You get paged first |
Choose Managed Hosting when…
- — You do not have anyone who wants to own server administration
- — A panel workflow covers everything you need to ship
- — You would rather pay for accountability than build it in-house
Choose Cloud VPS when…
- — You need root to install or tune something the panel doesn't expose
- — You already have the skills (or team) to patch and secure a server
- — You want the lowest possible layer between you and the hardware
Verdict
If losing a weekend to a security patch would be a genuine problem for your team, pay for managed. If root access is the entire point — custom daemons, unusual runtimes, containers you orchestrate yourself — unmanaged is not just cheaper, it's the only option that fits.
Want a personalised recommendation?
The Cloud Finder scores the same catalogue against your answers.