We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and VIPRE Endpoint Security 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."The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"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."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Microsoft Defender can block some viruses or malware. So, it can protect my files. It can save files on Office 365 OneDrive. I use encryption for some files, then I can recover them from OneDrive."
"The visibility into threats that the solution provides is pretty awesome... This is something that makes me think, "Wow, okay. If I had my own organization, I would probably get this too." It stops the threat before an employee gets phished or something gets downloaded to their computer."
"The investigation aspect is the most useful. It's user friendly and has a good user interface."
"User-friendly, offering safety and security."
"Defender is stable, I haven't had any problems with viruses when using it, and it's easy to update."
"It's a very solid security system, and the advanced hunting and everything really lets you dive deep into things."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is quite good. We haven't really experienced any issues with it."
"The solution has an easy-to-use interface, is always updated, and is user-friendly."
"In general, it was pretty easy to manage."
"It has low overhead as far as machine resources are concerned. Everything runs faster with VIPRE installed versus some of the competitors. It has also been pretty easy to use. It just runs and gives us reports. It also sends us alerts when there is something that we need to look at. It does its job, and you just look at the reports. In other ways, you just forget that it is there."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The support needs improvement."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"Detections could be improved."
"Localization is always a challenge, especially with new products you typically want. Solutions are designed to be deployed where the most licenses are being consumed, such as in the United States. They focus on US products, devices, and networks. Specialized deployments for other countries would allow for a smoother experience in transition."
"Microsoft support could be more knowledgeable."
"The file scanning has room for improvement. Many people use macros within their files, so there should be a mechanism that helps us to scan them for malicious payloads."
"The reporting in Microsoft Defender for Endpoint should improve. The solution has limited features."
"There's a lot of manual effort involved to configure what we need."
"The detection of viruses could be a little bit better."
"Defender's cloud integration could be improved."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint does not offer default templates for alerts, requiring us to configure everything ourselves to avoid numerous false positives."
"Their management interface is a little buggy. It requires a few system resources on the management interface. Its reporting can also be better. Overall, the reports are pretty good. They patch some third-party software, but if they can expand what they do for reporting and patch enterprise software, it would be handy."
"We would get a lot of false positives and instead of them fixing the false positive, they would just want us to put in an exception, which I didn't care for."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 182 reviews while VIPRE Endpoint Security is ranked 59th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP). Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0, while VIPRE Endpoint Security is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VIPRE Endpoint Security writes "Easy to deploy, good price, low overhead, and keeps our Servers and PC's free of virus'". Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon and ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, whereas VIPRE Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon and Intercept X Endpoint. See our Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. VIPRE Endpoint Security 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.