Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (formerly Microsoft Defender ATP) is a holistic, cloud delivered endpoint security solution that includes risk-based vulnerability management and assessment, attack surface reduction, behavioral based and cloud-powered next generation protection, endpoint detection and response (EDR), automatic investigation and remediation, managed hunting services, rich APIs, and unified security management.
$2.50
per user/per month
Qualys TruRisk Platform
Score 6.0 out of 10
N/A
Qualys TruRisk Platform (formerly Qualys Cloud Platform, or Qualysguard), from San Francisco-based Qualys, is network security and vulnerability management software featuring app scanning and security, network device mapping and detection, vulnerability prioritization schedule and remediation, and other features to provide vulnerability management and network attack surface reduction.
As compared to some of the other products we have used in our organization over the years, Windows Defender has been a lot better at not using a lot of system resources when running on the clients. A lot of other commercial threat protection products on the market today, tend …
I think Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is very good in the federal space that I work in because when you deal with these highly regulated environments, anything that you have outside of the Microsoft ecosystem, you have the justified documented company. There's a lot of work and a high level of effort involved in that. So what it's really good at is that it's all encompassed into Microsoft. It's built in, it works really well together. So that's why it's my recommendation whenever we deal with customers that are in my field.
Qualys Cloud Platform is well suited for organizations that need additional tools to secure and bolster their security from end to end. The automated, real-time threat protection is very quick to notify an admin of potential vulnerabilities and risks, as well as recommending quick fixes to resolve/close the gap before an incident occurs. QCP excels at portraying all of these in a single pane of glass, and find that the Qualys reports are more detailed than competitor product lines. One of our big issues with QCP is that you do have to pay for each scanner, which can quickly add up to large costs. For this reason, I would rate Qualys at a ~7 due to great features and functionality, but overall value could be better for a large organization. I would also say that QCP may make more sense for smaller organizations due to this pricing model.
I think from a scalability perspective, it’s incredible. It fits very well with our Azure stack, and we’re constantly adopting more and more different Microsoft products. But I think the key thing is ease of use. Its scalability, and it’s just that, enterprise-wise and in terms of control, we can actually centralize it as well.
It really does well at vulnerability scanning, which it is well known for. It's accuracy at finding vulnerabilities is top notch, more so than a lot of other vulnerability tools out there. In an organization/company you want this kind of accuracy at finding vulnerabilities in your network/endpoints
It is very good at managing endpoints on a consistent basis, meaning you can add endpoints to Qualys and have the platform scan/track/protect for vulnerabilities on an ongoing basis, without user intervention
It does really well at separating out and identifying what levels of criticality each vulnerability should fall into. This way, an organization/company can attack the more critical vulnerabilities first
I feel like the vulnerability management side of things is really great. I would like maybe more custom risk scores from that. It gives us our highs and criticals. Proof of concept exploits would be great so we can really assess the risk. It already does a lot of that, though. It gives us that tag. But maybe making it more GUI-friendly, more visibly friendly, could be something I feel like they could work on. The portal, too, I find, is a little hard to navigate sometimes. There seem to be hidden webpages within webpages. One thing off the top of my head is the IPs. They have the IP pages, but you have to click through four or five different subpages to get there. So I feel like maybe redoing the navigation in the portal would be very helpful.
This program is really complicated, the multiple functions that are presented to us are not very clear and in some cases, it is a matter of intuition to execute a function, it is not very informative.
The interface of this program can be a real problem; for our taste, this program looks a bit messy, and the interface does not help or guide you to find the options you need.
Cost add-ons for Security features is nickel and diming the process to keep pace with cybercrime. Limited Education budgets require us to be more pro-active in finding cost-effective measures to protect our devices, staff and students. Defender is a strong, well-featured product that is pricing itself out of the education market
It's good, but as I said, it does get a little confusing sometimes when you're trying to remediate, when you're trying to put all your alerts together, and trying to get everything in the same place. It's a little, I guess, what we call alert fatigue. There are a lot of alerts on it as well.
Again, the usability of Qualys has been a pinpoint for this entire review. It was easily the worst thing about the product and because of this, I would not recommend Qualys to anybody in my field. This should be something that Qualys strives to improve if they wish to stay in business.
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint chugs along just fine no matter what we throw at it and what systems it's running on. It doesn't take up a lot of resources either, so that's welcomed.
The first time I tried to onboard my macOS endpoints to MDE I struggled for quite a bit. I had to reach out to Microsoft's MDE support team. The tech was very helpful in walking me through the steps during a screen share session
They had a support page within the WAS to report any concerns or seek help. But the UI of that is not smooth. Regardless support staff were pretty responsive and helpful. They scheduled calls to understand and address our problems. Email support is good as well.
Deployment was handled by our team here and everything went pretty smoothly. We did have a few hiccups in our test group, but that only took a bit to get ironed out.
Previously, we've used Sophos. We've used, way back when, McAfee, Norton, Symantec, all those. And we finally settled on Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. We're a Microsoft technology stack shop. So obviously it was natural. It's built into Windows, so we're not adding additional agents. Some of the other vendors and their agents, for a while, would compete with CPU usage. And so it actually slowed down the machines. Because Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is built into the Windows product, Microsoft is going to ensure that it does not affect the other productivity tools that a user may use.
As described before Qualys is used to scan periodically the environment in order to check if there are some packages (Linux) or Applications (Windows) outdated, generating reports to the Service Owners, fulfilling what's is expected from us, attending all our expectations regarding the tool. That's why we'd choose Qualys to our organization.
Another positive impact is that Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is built into the Windows OS. So naturally, it is much easier to load it out and manage it, rather than acquiring it through party ER, deploying it, and managing it separately. So that's definitely on the positive side that we observe there's a byproduct of changing Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.
