ThreatDown, powered by Malwarebytes vs. OpenText EnCase Endpoint Security

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

It is more suited to environments that have a large internal user base since there will be more incidents that require forensic analysis. It will be less suited for environments that have a small internal user base due to the fact that there would be fewer incidents that require forensic analysis, but it really depends on the industry that a small internal user base is a part of.

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

• Functionality meets minimal requirements, since it performs forensic investigations as advertised.

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

• Their UI definitely needs to be more user-friendly, right now it is very cumbersome to run and view investigations.
• Authentication mechanism should be a simple username/password, not certificate-based which is difficult to manage.
• Needs better support documentation for the product, it is difficult to find solutions to issues that we run into.

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

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

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

Because support is non-existent whenever you have a functionality issue using the product. Also since the UI is so cumbersome to use we could use as much support as possible. Whenever we ask for support we are told to take the training which costs us more money. I believe that support should be easily accessible and affordable for the client

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

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.

The other forensic tool that is a direct competitor to EnCase and wasn't listed above is the Forensic Toolkit or FTK. I believe that FTK is a better tool overall simply because it is easier to manage and use when it comes to investigations. Unfortunately, I wasn't part of the decision process and EnCase was the tool selected, otherwise, I would have recommended FTK.

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

• One negative impact would be that since the UI is cumbersome to use we would need to spend more money on training which is not always feasible.
• Another negative impact would be that since there is not much support available this slows down investigations due to finding out how to troubleshoot and fix functionality issues.
• One positive impact would be that since it meets minimal requirements when it comes to forensic analysis it gives us visibility on any malicious activity occurring on a user's endpoint.

Incentivized