Huntress vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Huntress is great for a managed service provider to provide a better cybersecurity stack to their endpoints/customers. Some smaller clients cannot afford high-priced SOC services but require SOC-level protection. Along with a couple of other layers of security, Huntress provides peace of mind for the MSP that if a threat were to arise, they would be notified with specific instructions for dealing with that threat.

Incentivized

I would say, where it's well suited as certainly any device where you know that either you're potentially running a Kickstarter device as your own personal unit, but maybe you want to try to connect it to some resource like, "Hey, you know what? This is a small community device. Maybe I'll try connecting my email on the go." You're protected from that perspective with the vendor, even if it's something that might be a bit suspicious from a hardware perspective. There's also the case where any device that you know are running Defender for endpoint that you're good to go. You don't really have to worry about all the other solutions out there because Defender has recovered.

Incentivized

• Ease of deployment
• Non-intrusive to host system
• Fantastic support when something is going wrong
• Eager to dig in with you to figure out issues

Incentivized

• It integrates perfectly with Azure Sentinel. I mean, that's great. We can have a single pane of class with other platforms, like Defender for Cloud, Defender for endpoints, and Defender for servers, which is awesome as well. The ease of deployment is because Microsoft made sure around a year ago that every single workstation with Microsoft Windows came with Defender for Endpoints embedded.

Incentivized

• [I] would like to see more SOC as a Service - service from them.
• [I would also like] improved Intune integration, especially with Windows Defender and the rest of the suite.

• While it's a very good product for auditing, it has a very hard time to distinguish what is malicious and is an attack, what is not. Very rarely we get indication of a real malicious attack. We got lots of hours for off the shelf malware that it cleans up automatically. So basically we never get to look at it, which is a positive thing, but threats are detected by the third party endpoint, so it will not be enough by itself.

Incentivized

The first time I tried to onboard my macOS endpoints to MDE I struggled for quite a bit. I had to reach out to Microsoft's MDE support team. The tech was very helpful in walking me through the steps during a screen share session

Incentivized

Pre-EDR Huntress is really unique in what it does. It is hard to directly compare that against anything since it is changed based

Incentivized

Tenable Security Center was a fantastic exposure detection tool but there was always a lag and servers would hang alot when being scanned causing resource traffic. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint on the other hand does not use up most resources soo there is usually noo lag during scanning and it also provide more detailed insights on the network. Also Microsoft Defender for Endpoint integration power has helped us up our security game by delivering a smooth secure network.

Incentivized

• Detections that antivirus misses
• Their price doubled recently so I had to talk to clients about the increase.
• The ROI is immediate for some clients and hasn't detected anything at others.

Incentivized

• Positive : Microsoft Defender for Endpoint offers sophisticated threat detection and response capabilities, putting it into use helps increase security. Reduced security incidents, data breaches, and related expenses may arise from this.
• Positive : A more secure environment means less time and effort spent by IT and security teams on remediation and incident response.
• False Positives: Like any security solution, false positives can occur, leading to unnecessary investigations and potential disruptions to business operations. This may require additional resources to manage.

Incentivized