ThreatDown (formerly Malwarebytes for Business), combines Malwarebytes' endpoint security capabilities in four bundles. The basic Core tier includes incident response, Next-gen AV, device control, vulnerability assessments, and the ability to block unwanted application.
$345
per year per endpoint (minimum 5)
Rapid7 InsightVM
Score 8.1 out of 10
N/A
InsightVM is presented as the next evolution of Nexpose, by Rapid7. This Insight cloud-based solution features everything included in Nexpose, such as Adaptive Security and the proprietary Real Risk score, and extends visibility into cloud and containerized infrastructure. InsightVM also offers advanced remediation, tracking, and reporting capabilities not included in Nexpose.
$19
per GB
Pricing
ThreatDown, powered by Malwarebytes
Rapid7 InsightVM
Editions & Modules
Core
$345
per year per endpoint (minimum 5)
Advanced
$395
per year per endpoint (minimum 5)
Elite
$495
per year per endpoint (minimum 5)
Ultimate
$595
per year per endpoint (minimum 5)
Log Management
$19
per GB
Vulnerability Management
$22
per asset
insightIDR
$52
per asset
Application Security
$2,000
per app
insignConnect
Contact sales team
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
ThreatDown, powered by Malwarebytes
Rapid7 InsightVM
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
Optional Add-Ons include server and mobile device protection. Server protection ranges from $129 to $179 per annum depending on service tier. Mobile security is $10 per device, no matter the service tier. A 10% discount is offered for choosing a two-year billing plan.
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
ThreatDown, powered by Malwarebytes
Rapid7 InsightVM
Considered Both Products
ThreatDown, powered by Malwarebytes
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose ThreatDown, powered by Malwarebytes
ThreatDown, powered by Malwarebytes, performs so many more functions than simple, traditional anti-virus tools. The cost is less than most others too! The centralized deployment and management console is super-easy to use, yet highly functional. In this day and age, I’m a bit …
Selected this because it seemed like a good solution. After 2 years of using, I find that the system had not been working for FOUR MONTHS! even though system reported that ALL WAS WELL
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 …
I think Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection is hands down better from any point of view other than price. Malwarebytes is a little bit more costly than Webroot. However, Malwarebytes detects more threats, protects against more malicious URL's, allows more in customization of …
In the past, we've used McAfee, ESET, and Trend Micro. Each of these has their pros and cons, and all are variably priced. They are all overall "good enough" antivirus software, but what makes Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection stand out more is that it's more affordable, it's …
We chose Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection after reviewing hundreds of reviews from peers and calculating to cost of ownership and ROI which Malwarebytes handily beat any potential competitors we dealt with. They really worked with us to come up with a plan and a price that …
Avast and Bitdefender. Malwarebytes works well in the background, with little input require from the user. The software does not seem to slow down the network while it is scanning. The increase in security level justifies the upfront cost of implementing this type of protection.
In my experience, Malwarebytes doesn't compete with other endpoint protection products but it complements them for a more effective defense in depth strategy. While it is possible to run Malwarebytes as your only endpoint protection solution, I have found it best to use it in …
We have not used any other product consistently. We occasionally have used SuperAntiSpyware as an added scanning too, but do rely on or install it on our machines.
It provides excellent cover in terms of ransomware, and when running various testing tools to see the effectiveness, it scored much more highly than our existing product. It also has excellent recovery options, with the roll back feature. I selected it because of the experience …
I stick with Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection because of the simplicity of deploying and managing the product and policies. Most importantly - because it works to defend our network and systems so well that we have had little to no need for intervening on any items. …
We used some of the other products as our endpoint protection and they were not up to today's threats. Malwarebytes found threats the others let in from the 1st day we used it. We knew right then we had made the right choice.
Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection is dedicated to protecting against and the remediation of malware. No other product does it better. Their consumer version of the software is often refereed to by other security products and security researchers to clean infected systems. It …
I think Tenable is very comparable and they are both leaders in this space. I evaluated both of them side-by-side and ultimately decided to go with Rapid7. Tenable did have a slight edge on the amount of information I was getting from the machines, but I landed on R7 because I …
Rapid7 InsightVM is more cost effective than the other solution on the market. It is easy to deploy and the user interface is easy to use and intuative. We select Rapid7 InsightVM mainly because it integrates well with ServiceNow compared to the other solution that were …
Rapid7 InsightVM is a more professional tool than NESSUS because historically, it was based on metasploit which is a powerful pentesting and exploiting tool. InsightVM covers more attacking scenarios and vulnerabilities than competitors and still a leader in this domain.cloud …
Nessus Pro does scans, but does not maintain an inventory from scan to scan. There is no history for a specific device, you have to look inside the results of each scan. Search across inventory is non-existent. There are no dashboards for data analysis. This is no tracking …
Tenable has a more refined look for the reporting that it provides as a result of scanning events, but Nexpose seems to have a better ability to help quantify risk and help prioritize the work needed to get the quickest security result for the team and the company. The Nessus …
I would absolutely recommend Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection to a colleague and I have recommended it to many of my peers in the IT world. Malwarebytes is well suited for any environment that requires protection from mal/ransomware which is most companies these days. In particular for companies that host their own big data that the operation of the company relies on. The only place Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection may not be AS appropriate would be one where there is near zero reliance on computers, networks and data.
I think Rapid7 InsightVM is well suited for large enterprise customers with a lot of assets. It integrates well with a number of different ITSM solutions which I think is very good. There are not many CIS benchmarking tools on the market and Rapid7 InsightVM does a very good job at benchmarking. I think where Rapid7 InsightVM falls down a little is on false positive vulnerabilities. Sometime you there a few positive results on vulnerabily discovery. Tuning the settings for scan engines can sometimes be trick as well.
The biggest plus with this software is that you can manage all the clients from a management console. You can push the install/updates through it. If the client cannot connect to the management console, then it will update directly from their website. This means you are always up to date and protected.
The software on the client machine has very low overhead so it doesn't affect the performance.
You can create policies based on the types of users or by the department. You can customize these policies so it will let you micro-manage the clients.
The API is also a great tool for us to automate lots of routine procedures like scan and report of asset(s) BY EMAIL.
Tagging. It helps sort out results and reports for respective assets Owner for remediation without a lengthy report including unnecessary information for that particular team.
SQL Reporting. It provides advanced reporting and export capabilities that you can not find in the stock report template.
Devices found and scanned are never removed. Removal must be done manually with no option for automation.
The database can be fragile. Ours quietly corrupted and progressively degraded until we had to restore and lose 6 months of data. Still didn't fix it and had to be rebuilt again losing all data.
Workflow for delegating remediation is supposed to be helpful, but can also become cumbersome.
Scheduling can become a nightmare if not monitored closely. We found jobs had failed to run because the server had gone offline. When the server came online, it did not try to run missed jobs. Running missed jobs all at once can overload the server, but searching for and launching a large number of missed jobs manually is a pain.
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
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
While I think it is a great tool and platform, I believe it (like all tools and solutions) is always evolving and the needs for clients are changing as the industry evolves and threats are upgraded. Cost is good, and support is helpful. Some things could be more granular and others could be easier to understand
Whenever I've had a query for the support team, they have got back to me very quickly, and given me very well detailed advice on fixing whatever the issue I had was. They also pointed me to help documents and such where I could find more information if I needed
I gave it a seven due to the functionality and general ease of use after the initial setup headaches, but compared to Qualys, Rapid7 Nexpose falls short on features and ease of use. Their support drags this rating down a point as well. I have gone weeks with no update on semi-critical issues and typically have to make call after call to get a semi-coherent response.
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
I think Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection is hands down better from any point of view other than price. Malwarebytes is a little bit more costly than Webroot. However, Malwarebytes detects more threats, protects against more malicious URL's, allows more in customization of policies, has better administration GUI, and has better means of implementation.
I think Tenable is very comparable and they are both leaders in this space. I evaluated both of them side-by-side and ultimately decided to go with Rapid7. Tenable did have a slight edge on the amount of information I was getting from the machines, but I landed on R7 because I found the features of the InsightVM tool to be more useful. They both get the job done, but I found InsightVM a better experience to use on a day-to-day basis and had better quality of life features that I was looking for.
It certainly has a more positive impact than negative impact while performing the scans. Nexpose can find report vulnerabilities that our other scanner fails to identify during the scan because of its defined scan templates.
Also, even if the scan is not being performed due to some issues like reachability, whitelisting, etc. it will try to give scan results unlike QualysGuard which just marks the asset as unreachable.