We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Webroot Business Endpoint Protection based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: When selecting the best Endpoint Protection (EPP) for business, PeerSpot users feel Microsoft Defender is the better choice for Windows and Azure products, although Webroot does receive higher marks in the service and support and deployment categories.
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"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."
"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 console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The stability is very good."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Defender is stable enough and is competitive with the other products in the market."
"The intelligence mechanisms are good."
"The ransomware and malware protection is the most valuable feature."
"I like the simplicity of the portal and the integration with Microsoft Intune. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is easy to use and implement."
"Defender for Endpoint provides good visibility into threats and has favorable threat intelligence."
"This is not an inventory solution, but it helps you take count of how many workstations you have, as well as what software is installed on each of them."
"I like that it's easy to deploy because it already comes with Windows 10. Overall, it has all the features that we need. Easy to deploy, comes with updates, and comes with Windows updates. You don't have to really manage or update the signature."
"The solution's main antivirus capabilities are okay. So far, they have kept us safe."
"It is very lightweight on the workstations, not slowing them down while still doing its job very well."
"The solution is very simple and straightforward to use."
"It monitors traffic and keeps us from getting ransomware or other viruses."
"It is an easy-to-use and easy-to-configure product."
"The ease of use of the centralized admin console is its best asset."
"They have a lot of features integrated from way back, which shows that the product developers know exactly what they're doing."
"Low performance requirements."
"It is pretty unintrusive. It doesn't take over the system like McAfee or Norton. It doesn't use a whole lot of resources. McAfee and Norton use a lot of resources."
"The solution is not stable."
"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"
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"I would like Microsoft to have some kind of direct integration for USB controls. They have GPO and other controls to control the access of the USB drives on devices, but if there is something that can be directly implemented into the portal, it would be good. There should be a way to control via a cloud portal or something like that in a dynamic way. USB control for data exfiltration would be a good feature to implement. Currently, there are ways to do it, but it involves too many different things. You have to implement it via GPOs and other stuff, and then you move or copy those big files via Defender ATP. If there is a simple way of implementing those features, it would be great."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint could improve by making the reporting better."
"I wish they would extend the use of the Security Central portal, even for the free option of Defender. Because, as companies grow, it is labor intensive to manage the AV and detection part of it. For companies already subscribed to Office 365, I think this would be a good enhancement."
"The scanning is slow when it is working with incoming emails."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can improve by making the reporting faster. It takes some time to reflect back to the administration portal of what has been updated. For example, out of 100 Computers, approximately 90 computers received updates, but when you check the administration portal over one or two days, you will only see 75, even though 90 were updated."
"Its detection is not as quick. There should also be more frequent updates."
"The initial setup can be a bit complex."
"The product itself does not necessarily need improvement, but the support and implementation of the product are the disaster cases."
"It doesn't do anything proactive. The virus has to hit the machine before it detects it."
"The reporting is the weakest part of the Webroot console. Frequently, I export to Excel to massage something into it to pass on to others."
"Reporting system could be improved."
"Webroot Business Endpoint Protection needs to focus on how they can widen their area of scope by not just being an antivirus tool anymore. The shortcoming in the customization area of the tool needs improvement."
"The console spins up relatively slowly, and some of the configuration items are obscure (e.g., reporting back one time per day is a default setting) and need to be tweaked."
"Webroot is very reactionary. It waits until the threat is active within memory to try and detect it. They need better pre-execution detection and prevention."
"Technical support is not the best. It's hard to get a hold of them if we need help. It's something that definitely needs improvement."
"I did notice that my OS slowed down, but I don't know if that's due to Webroot."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Webroot Business Endpoint Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 182 reviews while Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is ranked 34th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 30 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0, while Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is rated 8.2. 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 Webroot Business Endpoint Protection writes "Lightweight and not hard to set up however, does not offer good reporting". Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon and Microsoft Intune, whereas Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Huntress, HP Wolf Security, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Cynet. See our Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. Webroot Business Endpoint Protection 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.