We compared Elastic Security and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Overall, users appreciate both Elastic Security and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for their comprehensive threat protection, user-friendly interfaces, and effective incident response capabilities. Elastic Security stands out for its strong threat hunting functionalities and log management, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is praised for its efficient system management and reporting. Elastic Security users value its affordability and flexible licensing, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint users highlight its reasonable pricing and seamless integration with other Microsoft products. However, Elastic Security users feel it could improve its threat monitoring capabilities and incident response system, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint users suggest areas for enhancement such as easier navigation and improved integration with other security tools.
Features: Elastic Security is valued for its strong threat hunting functionalities, efficient log management, and seamless integration with other Elastic solutions. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is praised for its real-time monitoring and detection, efficient system management and reporting, and seamless integration with other Microsoft products.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for Elastic Security is regarded positively by users, who appreciate its minimal associated costs and hassle-free experience. On the other hand, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is also praised for its reasonable pricing, straightforward setup process, and flexible licensing options., Elastic Security's positive ROI is attributed to its tangible benefits and delivered results, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint's success lies in its performance, effectiveness, ease of use, and real-time insights.
Room for Improvement: Elastic Security product has room for improvement in its threat monitoring capabilities, incident response system, integration with other security tools, navigation, user interface, and customizable features. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint also has areas that could be enhanced.
Deployment and customer support: The feedback on the duration to establish a new tech solution for Elastic Security varies, with users having different timeframes for deployment, setup, and implementation phases. In contrast, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint also has mixed feedback, with some users spending longer on deployment compared to others who completed both deployment and setup within a week. Looking at the context of the terms used is crucial., Customers have found Elastic Security's customer service to be helpful and supportive, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is praised for its efficiency, promptness, and ability to address concerns.
The summary above is based on 114 interviews we conducted recently with Elastic Security and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"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."
"I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"The solution is compatible with the cloud-native environment and they can adapt to it faster."
"The performance is good and it is faster than IBM QRadar."
"ELK is open-source, and it will give you the framework you need to build everything from scratch."
"Elastic has a lot of beats, such as Winlogbeat and Filebeat. Beats are the agents that have to be installed on the terminals to send the data. When we install beats or Elastic agents on every terminal, they don't overload the terminals. In other SIEM solutions such as Splunk or QRadar, when beats or agents are installed on endpoints, they are very heavy for the terminals. They consume a lot of power of the terminals, whereas Elastic agents hardly consume any power and don't overload the terminals."
"It's not very complicated to install Elastic."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"We've found the initial setup to be quite straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability. We are in Indonesia, more engineers understand Elastic Security here. So it is easier to scale and also develop. In features, the discovery to query all the logs is very important to us. It is very easy, especially with the query function and the feature to generate alerts and create tools. Sometimes we use the alert security dashboard to monitor our clients."
"One of the valuable features of the solution is the small updates that keep my machine relatively clean from any infections."
"It is easy to use because it is already pre-installed in Windows 10. We don't have to do anything to configure it. You can also configure the firewall by using a group policy so that it can be easily adopted in an environment."
"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."
"We have just started to implement it. It is useful for protection from malware and ransomware."
"Technical support is good."
"Auto-remediation: When the product sees malware, it resolves the issue immediately. This protects the machine."
"The comprehensiveness of Microsoft threat-protection products is great... Today, Microsoft Sentinel by itself is a leading Gartner SIEM tool. It has advantages over competitors because of the ability to integrate with Microsoft solutions and automate continuous monitoring of Microsoft AD and Office 365 data."
"It's stable."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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 support needs improvement."
"The solution's query building is not that intuitive compared to other solutions."
"The price of this product could be improved, especially the additional costs. I would also like to see better-quality graphics."
"The problem with ELK is it's difficult to administer. When you have a problem, it can be very, very difficult to rebuild indexes."
"There is room for improvement in the Kibana dashboard and in the asset management for the program."
"We'd like better premium support."
"We had issues with scalability. Logstash was not scaling and aggregation was getting delayed. We moved to Fluentd making our stack from ELK to EFK."
"If you compare this with CrowdStrike or Carbon Black, they can improve."
"The training that is offered for Elastic is in need of improvement because there is no depth to it."
"Some integration components for Mac should be added. We use both Windows 10 desktops and Mac desktops, but presently, the Mac component is still lagging a bit behind."
"On the Mac OS platform, there is no parity between Windows and Mac OS. The solution is very feature-rich and very well-integrated into Windows, and I guess baked into Windows 10 and Windows 11. Whereas, on the Mac OS platform, there is still some work there to give it a more feature-reach platform."
"The scanning is slow when it is working with incoming emails."
"I would like to see better integration with their other security products to give better visibility from a higher level."
"It can be more secure."
"There is no behavior analytics for devices and endpoints. There is no behavior-based protection."
"We'd like the stability to be better."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is secure but when it comes to security all solutions could improve security."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
Elastic Security is ranked 16th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 59 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 182 reviews. Elastic Security is rated 7.6, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Elastic Security writes "A stable and scalable tool that provides visibility along with the consolidation of logs to its users". On the other hand, 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". Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar and CrowdStrike Falcon, whereas Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Trellix Endpoint Security and Fortinet FortiClient. See our Elastic Security vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.