Bitdefender GravityZone EDR Reviews

We primarily use this solution for endpoint protection.

The most valuable feature is that it works great with machines.

The product can be improved by identifying errors. Sometimes, the product has issues but does not show error messages, and we have to check the console to find the issues. Therefore, it is difficult to identify problems and how they can be solved.

We have been using this solution for two years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

I can't comment on my experience with customer service and support because we have our own local support.

It was easy to set up and deployment took about 20 minutes.

The licensing cost is four euros per month.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. It is a usable program that works.

I use GravityZone Ultra as an endpoint security solution.

Areas for improvement would be performance and pricing.

This solution is scalable.

GravityZone Ultra is stable.

The setup was easy.

I would recommend GravityZone Ultra to others, and I would rate it seven out of ten.

We implemented it as an antivirus solution in our enterprise two months ago. It monitors and defends our endpoints against viruses and malware.

Once we installed Bitdefender, we saw that servers that had been attacked by certain types of malware were protected. Our applications have some defect issues and Bitdefender has proven to be a good antivirus and malware solution.

They are constantly updating the solution against malware.

There is room for improvement in the communication between servers and endpoints. The performance there needs to be much better. When we install endpoints and they communicate with the appliance server, we notice a drop in endpoint performance. The endpoint automatically connects and the policies are applied to the endpoint but the performance does not meet our expectations.

In terms of additional features, I would like to see a remote desktop for installed endpoints so administrators can see what is on a user's screen or what a user is doing. A remote desktop between the server and the endpoints would be a useful feature in Bitdefender.

It's very stable. The only thing I recommend is that the communication between the endpoint and the server needs improvement.

It's highly scalable. The scalability is very good. However, some legacy solutions on Windows caused issues, but we were able to solve them ourselves.

Technical support has been good. They are kind and respect our issues. I have received the help I need.

We had cybersecurity issues with our servers. One of our servers was attacked by ransomware. After that, we decided to bring on a solution to defend our servers from such issues.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was so simple I did it myself. I didn't need to go to the manuals, other than a little bit at the beginning. After that I continued everything by myself. It was so easy.

The deployment took about two hours.

There is a good return on investment. It gives you the protection you need and, for network administrators, peace of mind, once you have installed this solution. All your data will be secured by Bitdefender.

A good thing about Bitdefender is its price. It has a suitable price for every company and organization. I evaluated a lot of antivirus solutions, but some of them were so expensive. The most suitable one was Bitdefender.

I have reviewed a lot of solutions such as Kaspersky and Avast Endpoint Protection. I tested them myself, although not in production. But Bitdefender has proven, when installed in the production environment, to be very stable, good, and reliable.

Don't spend too much time searching. You'll find it easy to deploy this solution. Just download and try the trial version.

In terms of maintaining the solution, it requires two people, a network administrator and a backup network administrator. At the moment we don't have any plans to increase usage, but in the future we will have more endpoints.

One feature I found valuable was controlling from the cloud. It was better for me that GravityZone could be controlled from the cloud. 

We are having trouble on the server side. But also on the endpoint side. For example, specifically on my computer, I couldn't run it, so I had to remove the program. I'm not using endpoint security for now, especially not Bitdefenders right now.

We find it's making the machines run slow. We're also having problems in the service groups. When we run GravityZone it suddenly goes very slowly. Some processes are bad and we can't use some features, so we had to uninstall some products from the service of some endpoint devices. We are using about 2000 endpoints and 2000 servers.

They seem to have problems installing for the client. We can't seem to find support when we do an install. Uninstalling it is a problem as well. Recently, I tried to uninstall from my computer and when I tried to deploy it, it was hard for me to uninstall it. I have found some tools, but it was really hard to remove it with them too. 

It must be optimized in my opinion. Because it makes the machine very slow. In the past, we were using ESET NOD32. It was very good, it was not making the machine slow. It was normal. The machine was fast when I'm used ESET, but when I started using Bitdefender it made my computer very slow. It's not just me. My colleague is complaining that the machines are becoming very slow after using Bitdefender.

They should make uninstalling easier and improve the service side, but also make it removable on demand locally. It needs to be removable from the local service, not the cloud.

From what I understand, we were going to program from the cloud, and have one policy from the cloud. Some policies would be okay. But my computer was not visible in the cloud. Normally it's good because if we can move it onto the cloud, it would make it easy. With the use of the cloud, we can move many computers at the same time. At the time we had more than 2000 devices using it. But I couldn't move my computer. It was bad for me.

We had issues with technical support. They kept saying that they were helping, but in reality, on the ground, we had problems. From the server side, we had issues. We had so many servers, but we weren't using most of them. We had a license, but we weren't using it.

Previously we just used ESET.

The initial setup was complex, plus the IT company was not using one individual for one program for one company. They are installing for other companies also. There are so many companies, they're not installing the quality program for another person, or for other companies.

It's different, ESET.  You must learn it very well. Because every time you're downloading ESET, you're downloading a different ESET. Its operation is not the best at supporting people with IT issues. The workload is much more than before. We must do the same job with fewer people. It's so much work. But it's harder than ESET.

We looked at Kapersky and a few more. Kapersky was better than this product. I knew the Bitdefender engine was used by so many devices and the engine was known very well. But as an antivirus program, Kapersky and ESET were better than this solution. But their price for the company was too much. In my opinion, Kapersky's server side is better.

If you move from the cloud and can find good support in your country, it's advisable. But otherwise, the next time, I think I'd not choose Bitdefender GravityZone. I would rate the solution a 6 or 6.5 out of 10. Because of the issues we experienced on the server-side.

I like the style of it. It's great because I have access to it from anywhere. 

The solution can be improved by being able to pull up the localization key map of the user. Also, to be more international, not just American compliant.

I never had any issues, never had any bugs, it was very stable. I liked it very much.

I was in a daily rush and was put in touch with people who were selling the solution, so I was not left with a good impression.

I do wish the two solutions I picked up had the same way of working, but that's not the case. So, it's a compromise. I really like it; I really had a good time with the professional who pushed Bitdefender with me. He had a good experience. I don't know if I had the strength to set up everything. I needed to pre-offer the application, and I've tried Cryptids, pre-boot encryption on the drive, and BitCourse, which is Bitdefender's.

If you want to have a pre-boot, the password has to be set up using a keyed map, which is crazy, because nobody uses keyed maps. That's just a corporate failure and it's not acceptable when you see how much it costs.

The panels have also been able to bypass the security shell.

Unfortunately, the solution wasn't designed to be used in France. So I think it should be restricted to the American market.

For those setting up the solution, I would say get used to using core tying cable. 

It's much easier to deploy with the network, there's much more ease. I claim can do that for you, the HTTP management. But the way it was designed, it's not just designed for us.

Using BitDoctor for encryption isn't smart, because we're using Windows 7 Pro, and we can't use Bitcalc elements on Windows 7 Pro because it has to be committed Enterprise. There's no way we're going to buy it from SR Live Central just to get the disk encryption. And this is the whole point: you might as well get your own encryption engine and then just use that solution. Because with BitDoctor, you can encrypt the disk if you do a run dump, and then in the run dump you get the TPA chip and you can decrypt the disk. 

If I was an American, I'd give the solution an 8 out of 10. As a European, I rate the solution 6 out of 10.

We are using this for anti-malware and we have good features to protect us against viruses and malware.

It gives us the feature to block malware hashes. It has anti-phishing and ransomware vaccine.

The EDR feature is valuable. It helps us understand what is going on in our infrastructure. It provides a nice dashboard that gives us complete information of the status of the number of incident activities and we can also submit our file for the review.

In future, maybe this will need to provide cyber threat intelligence feeds which could help to have proper visibility of new security threats.

It is a stable product. 

We are scaling out, to more branches of our organization. We will definitely be increasing our usability in the future. 

They are responsive and provide you the solution with 24 hours (Depends on Time Zone).

Yes, I was using Trend Micro full suite. It didn't gave me advanced security features and it was quite difficult to manage. Secondly due to our bandwidth limitations we had to switch to cloud based solution with advanced security features.

The implementation was not that complex. We had a team that helps us implement it in-house. We downloaded the package, distributed it to our team and implemented it into our different branches. There are couple of other methods to distribute or install the package but we chose physical involvement of our team because of non technical staff in the branches and due to bandwidth limitation. We have more than 65 branches that received the package. 

We implemented the solution by our in-house team. Vendor was available on call, they are product experts and very responsive. 

The most important thing is pricing. Bitdefender is cost effective solution as compare to other competitors.

Yes, I tried to compare it with, ESET, Symantec, McAfee and Malwarebytes. Bitdefender won the race. Secondly they improving their features rapidly.

We're primarily using the solution for endpoint protection. We use it for security.

There's really not any issue with it, so far.

I like the firewall part of it. 

The advanced direct control on offer is excellent.

The initial setup is very easy.

The solution is stable. 

The product is pretty scalable. 

I've found the pricing of the product to be reasonable.

The only problem we have, and I don't know if maybe it's the package we bought, is that it lacks the parts of data protection and application blacklisting. I don't think we have that option on this package. Apart from that, we've been using it and we've been seeing the reports. We've had no issues so far. We're just missing the blacklisting and data protection features.

I've been using the solution for about two years at this point. It's been a while. 

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and the performance is good. 

We have 35 people in our company that are using the solution currently.

The solution can scale. It scales easily. Initially, we started with 30 users and then when we had new other staff that joined. Easy to scale and add others.

I've not really had any issues, and therefore I've not really spoken with any support in regards to our system.

I've worked with Sophos previously.

We also previously used Symantec, which is the product we had before Bitdefender. 

The setup is not complex. It was simple. We didn't have an issue. It was easily deployed.

That said, I cannot recall exactly how long the deployment took. 

The solution doesn't require any real maintenance. Usually, whenever there are any changes or outages you get notifications for them. I also receive a notification whenever there's maybe a system that's trying to make an attempt to do something different on our network so we can activate the device and protect ourselves.

We have two administrators that can handle any tasks related to the product.

We installed it ourselves. We just bought the license. We did not need a third-party integrator or consultant to assist us. 

Compared to Symantec, which we were using before we switched to Bitdefender, Bitdefender was cheaper. The pricing is reasonable. Everything is included in the price and we do not have any additional costs. 

We're just a customer and an end-user. 

I would recommend the product as it's easy to deploy and it's not as heavy as Symantec. We found that the product was consuming so many processes in our system. This is light, so it's easy to configure. It's easier to deal with and I'd recommend it based on that.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten.

We do not have any problems with viruses, cryptolockers, or other harmful threats.

Easy management of the endpoint protection. In simple words, it is awesome, very simple to use, understand, and apply its policies. Another feature is traffic scan, which protects the endpoints of harmful websites. It has direct impact on security, the email traffic scan, which is the last layer of protection in the organization, and based on today's threats, a very good option.

One thing that could be improved is more granularity and options on exclusions. I have some difficulty in allowing executables that were deployed every time on different locations.

Also, more options for admin endpoints clients.

No issues. On this matter, it is absolutely awesome.

No issues. We started with 60 endpoints. Now, we are on 170 endpoints.

I would rate the technical support as an eight out of 10. More flexibility from the technical staff would be very good. For example, I have a company-owned private application that was detected by AV as MIDAS3 (meaning that the application permit dll injection). The process to exclude globally the application was to send them the app, test it, and if everything was okay to exclude the app. The problem is that the app accesses private company data. So, in this case, no luck.

Previously, I was using Kaspersky with no central management option. The main reasons we switched were: 

1. Centralized Management
2. No client interaction
3. More points in detection of the current threats on various independent tests.
4. The suspicions about Kaspersky working with Russia FSB.
5. Bitdefender is a Romanian company, as is my company.

Very straightforward and easy, in the way of “Next, Next, Finished”. The only problem that I have encountered was with removing some of the other security software installed, where the Bitdefender installer did not always succeed in removing it.

In my opinion and based on interactions with other vendors, Bitdefender is the cheapest solution out there. The licensing is yearly-based.

Yes. Norton AntiVirus, ESET Antivirus, and AVG.

Looking from an IT perspective, it is the best in industry endpoint protection software, if we are talking about Windows/Linux/mobile (Android).