Bitdefender Sandbox Analyzer vs Microsoft Defender for Identity comparison

"Sandbox Analyzer is easy to use. It's simple to drill down into the data. In a lot of the competing products, an extremely informed end-user can do battle with the tools provided, but in today's market, end-users have less and less time to try and keep up. The CSAW alerts come out every day, and they're huge. Adobe did a master patch last Thursday and another one a few days later."

"I like the fact that it works pretty well. It can be a little aggressive at times, but I'd rather have it be a little bit aggressive than not catch what it's supposed to catch. We've been running that platform for about five years, and we've not really had any viruses or malware get through. It's also easy to set up, and it's easy to manage."

"It is easy to use, and there is a lot of automation. So, users don't need to worry about that."

"The solution is useful in the event of a gray file or grayware, as there are certain files users may download of which we know little about."

"The best feature is security monitoring, which detects and investigates suspicious user activities. It can easily detect advanced attacks based on the behavior. The credentials are securely stored, so it reduces the risk of compromise. It will monitor user behavior based on artificial intelligence to protect the identities in your organization. It will even help secure the on-premise Active Directory. It syncs from the cloud to on-premise, and on-premise modifications will be reflected in the cloud."

"Microsoft Defender for Identity provides excellent visibility into threats by leveraging real-time analytics and data intelligence."

"The feature I like the most about Defender for Identity is the entity tags. They give you the ability to identify sensitive accounts, devices, and groups. You also have honeytoken entities, which are devices that are identified as "bait" for fraudulent actors."

"It automates routine testing and helps automate the finding of high-value alerts."

"All the integration it has with different Microsoft packages, like Teams and Office, is good."

"The basic security monitoring at its core feature is the most valuable aspect. But also the investigative parts, the historical logging of events over the network are extremely interesting because it gives an in-depth insight into the history of account activity that is really easy to read, easy to follow, and easy to export."

"The solution offers excellent visibility into threats."

"This solution has advanced a lot over the last few years."

"It does everything we need. We haven't been able to throw anything at it that it couldn't handle."

"We propose the on-premises solution to most of our customers, for which we must provide a license, although no such request accompanies customers who want a cloud-based solution."

"It would be better if there were real-time alerts. The whole suite, unlike most anti-virus consoles that just ping you when there's an infection or something, for some inexplicable reason, Bitdefender doesn't do that. The most you could do is get an hourly email, or maybe if there's an outbreak that affects 30% of our machines, it sends me an email. There's no real-time alert to say, "Hey, so-and-so literally 30 seconds ago just had this happen on their machine." Real-time reporting would be a huge improvement. All in all, it's a pretty nice product, generally speaking. They do a pretty good job. They can pretty much go toe to toe with just about anybody. But it's that kind of real-time nature. I've not had occasion to use the EDR portion to actually try and do any kind of custom scripting to drill into things that are going on at the endpoints. But my understanding from reading comments of others is that it's not particularly flexible in that regard to be able to do things like that."

"We would like to see the time it takes for the sandbox to analyze a file reduced from its ten or fifteen minute duration to five."

"It should be more secure. There should be more protection, especially for non-signature-based malware. It works fine for non-signature-based malware, but I expect it to become a bit more advanced to be able to cope with future or upcoming environments."

"And when you are working in a priority IP address, Identity is not able to know that those IPs are from the company. It sees that the IPs are from Taiwan or from Hong Kong or from India, even though they are internal IPs, resulting in a lot of false positives."

"There is no option to remedy an issue directly from the console. If we see an alert, we can't fix it from the console. Instead, we must depend on other Microsoft products, such as MDE. That is a significant drawback. It simply works as a scanner, which can sometimes put enough load on the sensors. Immediate actions should be possible from the dashboard because. It can prevent issues from spreading further."

"The impact of the sensors on the domain controllers can be quite high depending on your loads. I don't know if there's any room for improvement there, but that's one of the things that might be improved."

"Defender for Identity gives us visibility, but we often get false positives from Azure that take us down the garden path. We go through 30 incidents each day and most of those are false positives or benign positive alerts. Occasionally, we get true positive alerts."

"One potential area for improvement could be exploring flexibility in the installation of Microsoft Defender for Identity agents."

"We observe a lot of false positives. Sometimes, when we go for a coffee break, we lock our screens. Locking the screen has a separate Windows event ID and sometimes I see it is detected as a failed login."

"The technical support needs significant improvement. Documentation for more minor issues in the form of guides or walkthroughs could help to resolve this issue. The number of tickets raised would decrease, removing some pressure from the support team and making it easier to clear the remaining tickets."

"Microsoft should look at what competing vendors like CrowdStrike and Broadcom are doing and incorporate those features into Sentinel and Defender. At the same time, I think the intelligence inside the product is improving fast. They should incorporate more zero-trust and hybrid trust approaches. They need to build up threat intelligence based on threats and methods used in attacks on other companies."

"I think it's probably less expensive than something like CrowdStrike. We got a really good deal because it was literally their year-end, and they were trying to close all the sales for the week. So we bought a three-year contract from them. It roughly ended up costing me somewhere around $17 for an endpoint per year. It was really quite a nice pricing. I've talked to other folks where they got CrowdStrike, and it's like $60 for an endpoint for a year. It does, and they can be pretty aggressive if you're dealing with them directly, and I have. So no complaints there."

"You need a license to a certain extent. You need to pay for advanced features. For corporate accounts, it isn't is really a problem, but pricing is an important thing for many companies."

"It is very affordable considering that other SIEM solutions are much more expensive and have many more licensing restrictions and fees."

"The product is costly, and we had multiple discussions with accounting to receive a discounted rate. However, on the open market, the tool is expensive."

"You won't be able to change your tenants from where you deploy them. For example, if you select Canada, they will charge you based on Canadian pricing. If you are also in London, when you deploy in Canada, the pound is higher than Canadian dollars, but your platform resources are billable in Canadian dollars. Using your pounds to pay for any of these things will be cheaper. Or, if you deploy in London, they will charge you based on your local currency."

"Defender for Identity is a little more expensive than other Microsoft products. Identity and Microsoft Defender for Cloud are both a bit costly."