Kaspersky Endpoint Security vs. ThreatDown, powered by Malwarebytes

I think Kaspersky is well suited for large and small companies. Larger companies can take advantage of the KSC (Kaspersky Security Center) servers to help manage a large network. The KSC has many good features to help monitor the health of the organization. It does a good job with updating and deploying remotely. It has inventory features, and can even deploy non-Kaspersky software packages uploaded to the center. KSC can become a source of good information about [your] network that can be seen at a glance. IT departments are normally smaller than they need to be. KSC helps with larger and smaller companies because of this. A small company would appreciate the amount of information and management that can be done through KSC without needing extra help. If the company is small enough that they don't have servers on-site, there is a cloud version. I have not used that to know how it differs from the local KSC.

Incentivized

I think Malwarebytes is the best anti-malware company. I think it is well-suited for any situation and any device. I think Malwarebytes does the best on Windows and on MacOS. Also, Malwarebytes is always improving, and you can tell they are a company that stays on top of cybersecurity trends. If you have a tight budget or looking for the cheapest solution, then Malwarebytes may not be the solution for you. To clarify, I don't think Malwarebytes is that much more expensive compared to its closest competitors.

Incentivized

• The Security Center is laid out very well and makes it easy to install and manage the client endpoint protection on servers and workstations.
• The way security policies are defined and managed is very easy to understand.
• The client programs seem to be lighter and smaller on the client systems than others I have used in the past. Using fewer resources is always an advantage.

Incentivized

• Protects against malware - No matter how much training you give end users on social hacking, there is always a breach at some point.
• Protects against ransomware - Ransomware could spell disaster for a company...it could literally shut the doors for good.
• Centralized administration - Without a terrific centralized method to manage all the systems being protected, it would require an extra position just to maintain all endpoints.

Incentivized

• The PC imaging tools are difficult to set up and use
• Device Encryption tools are getting better, but are difficult to manage.
• The policies are powerful, but could be broken up. More help can be provided in what the policy element does within the policy setup

Incentivized

• poor customer service
• dashboard says product is working EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT!
• slow response to concerns that should be easy to remedy
• creates baggage which caused certain computers and the network to run more slowly
• caused 3 computers on our network top have windows errors and network issues

The product is stable and accurate in detecting security threats. There are very few or no false positives in detecting security threats or unusual behavior and has very sharp heuristics. The product does the job very well including saving us money in getting 3rd party patch management tools as the business is already using Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager which is Microsoft product specific and the product patches these third party products e.g Adobe Flash Player

Incentivized

When I first used the tool in my home systems MANY years ago, I wished for a Business version. I was once at a focus group for a major antivirus company, and one attendee’s feedback to “what could we do better?” was “buy out MalwareBytes and add it to your tool”. I’ve used the Business version since it first became available, and have continued to be a dedicated user through the many iterations and improvements

Incentivized

I will give Kaspersky a score of 9 out of 10 for scalability, as it allows businesses to easily expand their security infrastructure. This means it won't cost them a lot to add further protection and security. It won't also require them to purchase other hardware and services for their required protection.

It simply works. It doesn't require the hand-holding and monitoring that some other solutions do. It's simple to deploy and maintain, and adding custom content such as Exceptions require minimal effort. I’ve had to add a few exceptions for internal-use, in-house-developed tools, but it’s quite simple to do so within the online interface

Incentivized

I've used the on-premise server. I've only experienced one time that we couldn't open the console, and that was a server issue. It seems to be a dependable solution. It's there, and it's stable.

Incentivized

Users don't notice any slowdown with the antivirus running on their systems. There have been issues when the systems have missed a scheduled scan, and it was checked to run at [a] first available time, they will start a full scan at startup. This has caused some lag. Normally there are also some issues with the workstation, but it is something to note.

Incentivized

I give the maximum grade because we have no complaints; we never had any failure, serious error, and serious threat to the company. All of its features work very well. The great advantage of having a product supported by an industry-leading security company is that regularly updated security protocols will protect the system against all emerging threats.

Incentivized

As I mentioned, we have only email support. Their phone support was very expensive. If we ever have any issues, we have to email them and wait for their response. In most cases, I have figured out the issue on my own. The software is very stable so we haven't used their support much.

Incentivized

Make sure to provide awareness campaigns on changes that will be implemented and WHY the business is doing it and the benefits reaped. Benefits reaped is very important for the justification of why things have to change and emphasizing the importance of security. This will reduce user disgruntlement and total bitterness on use of their workstation or laptop

Incentivized

I first implemented this more than 10 years ago, when it required an in-site setup with SQL Server (or SQL Express), and even that was pretty easy. With the move to centralized web management some treats ago, it’s become even easier to deploy

Incentivized

Kaspersky is a leader in endpoint protection, but its ties to potential adversaries are unsettling. Kaspersky has a great threat research team and quickly identifies malicious software and its signature. Its web-based protection is also top notch. This is a great product but as with everything has its place.

Incentivized

It's no contest. Cisco AMP, Umbrella and Endpoint use vast amounts of resources and provide little protection when compared with Malwarebytes. One client recently replaced Cisco with MWB and found over 7,300 vulnerabilities on 352 endpoints, including 120 listed as Critical and 7,180 listed as High, with CVE's dating back to 2008.

You can create groups and create different policies for each group. You can customize many parts of the software before it is deployed. You can create different tasks and schedules based on the groups. It is customizable.

Incentivized

• It reduced the incidents of infections and so reduced the efforts needed by the IT department to mitigate problems.
• It made it difficult to manage the security of our growing mobile user base due to infrequent contact with our on-premise management server.

Incentivized

• The ease of remediation has saved our IT team a number of hours manually installing, for example, the free version of Malwarebytes to remove infections, and then cleaning the machine up. Being able to centrally send commands to clean the device is much more efficient.
• The centralised management has also alerted us to infections on machines that we might not otherwise have known about, as the existing AV had not detected them, saving us potential data loss, or system damage.

Incentivized