The solution is primarily used by my clients in order to combine security software.
The solution works well when used with other Microsoft solutions.
It's rather easy to define your rules.
The software is not as advanced as many competitors. It doesn't offer the level of granularity that other software might.
It would be ideal if the interface allowed for more granular configurations. For example, if I were to set a rule that is a deviation from the pre-defined rules in the Microsoft product, there's conflict.
The solution may not integrate well with solutions that aren't in the Microsoft family.
I've been using the solution for about a year and a half so far.
The stability of the solution is good. I've haven't seen any bugs or glitches. I haven't found it unstable.
I don't have enough experience with scalability to be able to speak about it.
Right now, we have close to 5,000 users on the solution with one of our clients.
I've never been in touch with technical support so I can't speak to how good or reliable they are.
The initial setup of the solution is pretty straightforward. I don't think it's very complex, but I wouldn't call the implementation simple. If a person has knowledge of the solution, they shouldn't face any issues.
Some deployments take three months or more. Other deployments take less than a month. It depends on the complexity of the client's environment.
We're an official Microsoft partner.
I'm not a user of the product myself. I'm a consultant.
I don't always recommend the product. It's one of the many products we work with. Usually, there's an evaluation procedure and we make a recommendation to clients as to which solution would be best to use. If ATA makes sense for the client's project we recommend it. Most clients we recommend the solution to are already using other Microsoft products. A native solution always makes sense.
I would recommend the solution, but it would depend on the company's cybersecurity design.
I'd rate the solution five out of ten.