When it comes down to it, I feel that both Bitdefender GravityZone and Sophos achieve the same results, and that's what really matters. My personal opinion is that Sophos provides a much more robust console that makes a lot more sense when navigating. I've often gotten so lost …
It just works. I have seen multiple viruses and malware get past other antivirus software like TrendMicro, Webroot, and Kaspersky. Bitdefender GravityZone always catches what others miss. It has a very light footprint when it comes to system resources. The centralized management console is nice, but I prefer the console before they redesigned the UI.
Sophos Network Access Control would be most effective in an enterprise environment where there are many different groups of users, including guest users because it has the ability to block unauthorized users and control the access of guest users. It would not be well suited for an environment with less than 1000 users because as far as I know, the license requires at least that many users.
Once installed, Bitdefender [GravityZone] runs silently in the background with little to no need for user interaction.
The cloud-based console provides for easy computer management and deployment.
Bitdefender [GravityZone] is extremely flexible, with a policy-based system wherein different profiles can be created (i.e. a policy to deactivate the firewall, a policy to allow for admin control on a machine, etc.) and pushed out to individual computers.
Computers can be grouped into different categories, with different policies automatically deployed to each category.
Bitdefender [GravityZone] is relatively resource-light and runs well even on lower-end computers.
Who do I ask? This is my chief complaint is once the initial licenses were purchased through Bit Defender, there was no one to contact that could help navigate some of the initial questions I had with regard to specific policies to implement for our file server. The parent web site is, well, hard to navigate when one is trying to "learn" the system.
The second issue is in increasing the licenses. It took several days for the parent company (by contact and phone) to inform me that they could not increase the licenses and I would have to go through a private vendor. There was no intent to connect me to a vendor or provide a vendor list until I asked specifically. YET I continue to get email from the parent company reminding me to pay an annual fee for the licenses purchase through the private vendor. The parent company can see the number of licenses yet did not sell them to me.
Gravity Zone Dashboard, while excellent for those who have experience, is not particularly intuitive for those who have never used it. There does not seem to be a lot of documentation for those responsible for implementation.
Customer support was basically non-existent during the time we needed it the most. This should be #1 priority for any company.
Lack of support for Linux servers and Mac OS
The reporting system relies on information provided by the agents
Wide scale removal process needs some vast improvements. When using a batch removal script, it wrecks the NIC drivers to the point that they have to be removed and reinstalled.
It works. I rely heavily on my vendors to provide a product that works, is easy to implement, and that they support. As well as be a decent value for the money
The console is easy to use, but has grown to have a lot of functionality. The only challenge is that all functions (even disabled and not installed ones) are shown. It would be great if only the functions that are active would be visible.
Support is an area Bitdefender has always struggled with. While their products work great, the GravityZone dashboard is very technical in nature. If you aren't IT inclined, it could be difficult to setup. While most times support is helpful, we tend to work with them over email because of their very thick accent, they are hard to understand over the phone.
We were a Kaspersky shop for years. Kaspersky was a resource hog and it didn't even block half of what was thrown at it. We had more outbreaks and more end-user complaints in a year of Kaspersky then we have had in almost three years of Bitdefender.
I have used Mcafee Antivirus Suite, Trend Micro, and Vipre Antivirus. I actually had more experience with Vipre than anything else so that is the one that I will be comparing it too. From what I remember, Vipre was more expensive but had better customer support. Other than that, they both do pretty much thing as well as what all the others do. I personally do not believe that any enterprise level antivirus solution is better than any other, it boils down to which one can your company afford, and which one fits best with your needs.
The ROI for Bitdefender is hard to quantify except that it requires very little maintenance time from our staff.
We've spent no time troubleshooting user complaints or issues from users, so it has been a big time-saver over our previously used anti-malware software.
Bitdefender's customer service is usually pretty good and also very responsive, so I don't have to wait by the phone or to keep checking email to resolve a problem--although our issues have been mostly informational and not a problem with functionality.
Positive -- We were able to control guest users access
Positive -- Using the entire Sophos Security Suite I only remember one major virus while I was with the company which saves on downtime, and IT man hours
Negative -- The time we spent removing this, and reinstalling NIC drivers because the removal process crashed them cost the company in IT man hours.
