Jamf Protect vs. Webroot Endpoint Protection

The main reason we went with Jamf Protect was because we wanted a dedicated macOS security endpoint. Is was easy to implement and migrate over from our previous endpoint provider. As a university we have lab macOS devices that multiple users use. So we have Jamf Protect profiles that block the use of external drives and other other profiles that allow it. We different user accounts requiring different access this can get a bit messy when deploying the config profiles at login for each user that signs in.

Incentivized

The software tends to do a good job of basic protection but is not the best for larger clients and is not as powerful as some others offered on the market today. The support is not the best either, have had a hard time getting assistance in the past trying to resolve issues.

Incentivized

• Low resource use Protected Agent - stops tampering with agent and is not a resource hog
• Managed and custom Analytics - along with the out of the box Analytics provided by JAMF, admins can also set up their own to focus on areas of concern eg NISTcompliance items
• Vendor support - support is very responsive and knowledgeable

Incentivized

• It is very light weight and does not tax the computers resources
• Has a quick scan and does not take forevere when scanning
• It's central management on the web makes it easy to use and gives tons of control for Admins

Incentivized

• The integration with Jamf Pro has come a long way but could still be a bit more "one stop" vs two tools and two dashboards.

Incentivized

• There are several configuration options for both end-point and DNS protection. Would like a more simple way to understand and validate settings.
• Support is heavily video or FAQ based although you can submit a Support Ticket. Would like more availability to an actual support engineer.
• Overtime you can forget how to change setting - a refresher course would be nice, especially as new features are added to the solution.

Incentivized

It has proven successful so far in our environment for controlling malware/virus outbreaks.

Incentivized

Like I said before, sometimes I can't find what I need to change a setting.

Incentivized

Support has been reliable up to this point. A request can easily be generated via the console and support responding in a reasonable time. We have not had any major issues other than the basic agents not communicating with the console and the like.

Incentivized

I had some difficulties with remote users. I ended up needing to open a remote tech support session and finish the process. Other than a few speed bumps, I was impressed with the engineering of the install. Because of time differences, I was done installing in two days. The cost, per license, could be less.

Incentivized

In some aspects, Jamf Protect was far superior to the others mentioned above. The only downside I can see is that it is only macOS which could be a problem for hybrid environments.

Incentivized

We found other products to be able to detect malware and malicious URL's better than Webroot Endpoint Protection. Thus, we moved away from Webroot Endpoint Protection. Also, over the years, there were at least 2 big mistakes by Webroot, where our business applications were flagged as malicious as a false positive. Webroot did a public apology, but those mistakes were highly disruptive.

Incentivized

• Better detection of malware reducing downtime and risk to network
• Easy to implement
• Can be a bit of a steep learning curve in general

Incentivized

• The licenses are pretty expensive but less costly than an actual malware infestation.
• We have tremendous peace of mind knowing that our machines and communications are secure.
• Our IT consultants are a little more involved in day-to-day management than they were before deploying Webroot Endpoint Protection, which means an increase in cost, but again this is a fair price to pay for protection against Internet threats.

Incentivized