We performed a comparison between Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business and Microsoft Defender for Business based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is its deployment. It is easy to centrally deploy. You can deploy it on the Administration Console then deploy it to the different endpoint machines without specifically deploying it manually on each machine. Its deployment is really user friendly."
"Some of the most valuable features are the security and the stability, which are great. There are some imperfections, but everything is fine. In general, I think it's one of the best solutions."
"find some of the most valuable features to be the anti-malware, encryption, and the EDR launching service."
"The security is very good, compared to some other products."
"The hardware hardware detection is the most valuable feature. The feature where you can block and unblock mobile devices is also good."
"We used to have a lot of phishing attacks and all these kind of things for end-users so we decided that we needed endpoint security. We evaluated some solutions and found that Kaspersky is the most appropriate in terms of endpoint security and the speed of the user machine. The encryption is a major factor from our end."
"We have over 1,000 users using the solution in our organization and the solution has been able to handle it."
"We swtiched to Kaspersky Endpoint Security because we found our previous solution did not meet our requirements."
"It is scalable."
"If you're an Intune user, you can bring in certain capabilities like system-hardening policies, which further enhances the security."
"A few things are valuable. One is the alerting we see when any kind of intrusion is happening, any kind of malware is being deployed across the endpoints, or any kind of suspicious activity is going on. We have a footprint across all of North America, Canada, and Mexico, so we want to make sure that all our endpoints are protected and we are able to look for any anomalous activity."
"The interface is quite user-friendly."
"Microsoft Defender for Business is good for small and medium-sized businesses. It offers solid security flexibility and integration with tools like Microsoft Lighthouse and some other software. It takes some of the features of Defender for Endpoint EDR and provides those services for small and medium-sized business environments."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"Detections could be improved."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"The solution needs to lower its pricing."
"Maybe the solution's monitoring could be improved with more dashboards, so there's no back and forth, back and forth."
"We've found that sometimes the solution is not doing its job in detecting some malware."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security could have more visibility and threat hunting. Right now, if it detects a file, it's quarantined, and then we can't find more details other than the path and the file name. We don't see what process it's warning off and how the virus got in. So, the reporting on the quarantined items, why were they quarantined, etc., could be improved."
"Kaspersky could be improved by better malware protection. They have to take advantage of Malwarebytes and integrate the same engine inside Kaspersky. I use Malwarebytes as well because Kaspersky doesn't always detect malware."
"I would like the solution to be able to allow to have end to end security services from the final user to the server."
"The solution sometimes slows down the computers of our clients, the performance needs to improve."
"The deployment could be better."
"Defender's reporting is rather scattered, and its URL filtering mechanism doesn't really work."
"The security could always be improved."
"Defender's threat protection should be fine-tuned to reduce false positives. It could be more targeted, reflecting a continuous evolution in detecting. Also, it could be easier to integrate into other environments."
"The biggest one is that Defender needs to be more proactive to the emerging threats. There can be tighter integration with email, especially how it integrates with our email system, which is the Microsoft Outlook suite. There should be the ability to react a lot quicker to emerging threats because sometimes, it takes a few days before some of these new threats are fully identified, and we need that to be a few hours."
"We faced some issues while running some applications on Mac."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Defender for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 112 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Business is ranked 45th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 5 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Defender for Business is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Business writes "Quicker response time, improved security posture, and reduced alerts". Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Trend Vision One Endpoint Security, whereas Microsoft Defender for Business is most compared with HP Wolf Security, Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business vs. Microsoft Defender for Business report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.