ProductShieldMSPPricingCompareBlogDocsStart for FreeSign InTR
Compare · Dynacop vs Rublon

Dynacop vs Rublon for Windows Logon and RDP

Both products offer focused MFA for Windows console and RDP sign-ins and work without Active Directory. The difference is in the detail: Dynacop records the real person behind a shared account, accepts any authenticator offline, and blocks attacker IPs on the machine; Rublon offers a broader range of authentication methods.

This comparison covers the Rublon MFA for Windows Logon and RDP connector. RD Gateway and RD Web Access are separate Rublon integrations.

The short answer

Choose Dynacop
  • If you want to record the real person behind a shared account
  • If you want to keep using the authenticator your team already has offline (no proprietary-app requirement)
  • If you want Windows MFA and attacker-IP blocking in one product
  • If you want a low minimum and the first 10 users free
Choose Rublon
  • If you want broad authentication methods like push, FIDO2/security keys, SMS, and phone
  • If you need wider RDS coverage via Rublon's separate RD Gateway/Web connectors
  • If you prefer a broader MFA toolkit beyond Windows sign-in

Sourced comparison

Console + RDP MFAParity
Dynacop

Per-person MFA on console and RDP sign-ins

Rublon

Console and RDP; RDP-only or both can be chosen

Source: rublon.com/doc/rdp· last verified Jul 19, 2026
Is Active Directory required?Parity
Dynacop

No; local and domain accounts are supported

Rublon

No — “Microsoft Active Directory is not required. You can use Workgroup Accounts”

Source: rublon.com/doc/rdp· last verified Jul 19, 2026
Real-person record on a shared accountDynacop advantage
Dynacop

Each person verifies with their own factor; the record shows the real person

Rublon

Documented model: identity is mapped by Windows username (UPN/NTLM/sAMAccountName). Our assessment: a shared username doesn't split into Dynacop-style per-person records in the standard flow

Any authenticator offlineDynacop advantage
Dynacop

Any RFC 6238-compliant TOTP — online and offline

Rublon

Online: third-party TOTP (Google/Microsoft Authenticator, etc.) is supported. Offline: the Rublon Authenticator is required — “third-party ... not supported yet”

Source: rublon.com/doc/rdp· last verified Jul 19, 2026
Breadth of authentication methodsRublon advantage
Dynacop

TOTP only (deliberate simplicity)

Rublon

Push · FIDO/security key · SMS · phone · YubiKey · QR · email

Source: rublon.com/doc/rdp· last verified Jul 19, 2026
Auto-blocking a failed-login source in Windows FirewallDynacop advantage
Dynacop

Shield correlates source IP and blocks those over threshold in the machine's Windows Firewall

Rublon

No equivalent behavior documented in the Windows Logon/RDP docs we reviewed

Source: rublon.com/doc/rdp· last verified Jul 19, 2026
MSP management modelDifferent approach
Dynacop

Isolated multi-customer workspaces, license-free technicians, and a customer portal where the end customer sees and revokes their own access

Rublon

MSP partner program: multi-customer AD management and NFR licenses. No customer-facing access portal documented in the docs we reviewed

Source: rublon.com/become-partner· last verified Jul 19, 2026
Free plan and minimum licensesDynacop advantage
Dynacop

First 10 users free; no minimum on the paid plan

Rublon

Free plan: 1 protected user. Paid Business: minimum 15 licenses

Source: rublon.com/pricing· last verified Jul 19, 2026
Pricing structureDifferent approach
Dynacop

Single plan, per protected user

Rublon

Per-user Free / Business / Enterprise plans

Source: rublon.com/pricing· last verified Jul 19, 2026Check the vendor's pricing page for current figures.

Where they're equal or similar

  • Both offer focused MFA for Windows console and RDP sign-ins.
  • Both work without Active Directory, with local/workgroup accounts.
  • Both support offline verification.
  • Both use a per-user/per-person pricing logic.

Three key differences, in detail

Person ≠ Windows account

Documented fact: Rublon identifies users by their Windows username (UPN, NTLM, or sAMAccountName); no capability to distinguish individuals within a shared account is documented.

Dynacop assessment: Dynacop resolves identity from the entered code; even when the shared “administrator” account stays in place, the audit record shows the real person.

Shared-account person resolution →
No proprietary app offline

Documented fact: Rublon supports third-party TOTP apps (Google/Microsoft Authenticator, etc.) for online authentication, but offline access requires the Rublon Authenticator — “third-party ... not supported yet”.

Dynacop assessment: Dynacop accepts any RFC 6238-compliant TOTP app both online and offline; your team keeps the authenticator it already uses.

Windows Login MFA →
MFA + attack blocking in one product

Documented fact: the Rublon Windows Logon/RDP docs we reviewed do not document automatically blocking a failed-login source in the target machine's firewall.

Dynacop assessment: Shield does this in the same product — it verifies the authorized user with MFA and blocks the attacker IP on the machine.

Explore Shield →

Which is the better fit?

Dynacop may be the better fit

If your priority is the real person behind a shared account, proprietary-app-free offline verification, attacker-IP blocking, and a low barrier to entry (first 10 users free, no minimum).

Rublon may be the better fit

If you need a broad range of authentication methods like push, FIDO2/phishing-resistant keys, SMS, and phone, or wider remote-access coverage such as RD Gateway/Web. Dynacop is deliberately TOTP-focused.

Methodology and sources

This comparison is based on Rublon's public Windows Logon/RDP and pricing documentation and covers only that scope. Each Rublon statement in a row is taken from the vendor's documentation; the verdicts are Dynacop's assessment.

Last verified: July 19, 2026

Spotted an error? Report it: comparisons@dynacop.com

This is a non-independent comparison prepared by Forty2 LLC based on the vendor's public documentation; it is written by the Dynacop product team. Dynacop is not affiliated with Rublon. Rublon is a trademark of its respective owner.

Frequently asked questions

What's the biggest difference?

Both focus on AD-free Windows console/RDP MFA. Dynacop records the real person on a shared account, accepts any TOTP app offline, and blocks attacker IPs on the machine. Rublon offers a broader range of methods such as push, FIDO2, and SMS.

Does Rublon support third-party authenticator apps?

Yes — for online authentication, TOTP apps like Google Authenticator, Microsoft Authenticator, and Authy can be used. However, Rublon's current Windows offline-mode documentation states that offline use requires the Rublon Authenticator and that third-party passcodes aren't supported yet. Dynacop works with any RFC 6238 TOTP app both online and offline.

Does Rublon have a free plan?

Yes, Rublon MFA Free is for one protected user. The paid Business subscription requires a minimum of 15 licenses. In Dynacop, the first 10 users are free and there's no minimum on the paid plan.

How is a shared Administrator account recorded?

In Dynacop, each person signing in with the shared account verifies with the code on their own phone; the record is kept under the real person. Since Rublon maps identity by Windows username (UPN/NTLM/sAMAccountName), a Dynacop-style per-person distinction under one shared username isn't documented in the standard flow.

How current is this information?

The Rublon statements were verified on July 19, 2026 from the vendor's Windows Logon/RDP and pricing documentation. Products change; we recommend confirming the current state with the vendor.

Your first 10 users are free.
See the difference in your own environment in about 4 minutes.

No credit card required · No minimum purchase