We performed a comparison between Digital Guardian and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"It has been scalable."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"The feature we call desktop recording is the most valuable aspect of the solution. Not only can we collect data from the user's usage, but we also capture his screenshots when he is trying to steal the data."
"In Digital Guardian, they have the cloud correlation servers that give you visibility work like EBR and the correlation server works very well for security analysis."
"We have had no troubles installing, maintaining, or deploying the product for our clients."
"The security and vulnerability assessment features are valuable."
"Kaspersky Enterprise solution's combined protections have helped to block a lot of malware which would have caused a lot of interruptions in our operations."
"It provides good security."
"I think that all the features are valuable for our environment."
"Deployment and centralized management are essential for us because of the number of loads that we have along with the number of geographic locations where we are based."
"The implementation and integration are easy."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is its deployment. It is easy to centrally deploy. You can deploy it on the Administration Console then deploy it to the different endpoint machines without specifically deploying it manually on each machine. Its deployment is really user friendly."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"The support needs improvement."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The solution is not stable."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
"The room for improvement with Digital Guardian is that it will be better with the Linux agent because it is the only DLP solution for Linux workstations. It still needs to upgrade the agents to the latest version for the Linux kernel."
"It would be helpful if there was an on-premise version of the solution for companies that cannot use the cloud, such as government sectors."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"If the client uses Windows 10 or 11 and Microsoft updates the operating system's version, Digital Guardian must update their product to match compatibility."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"Technical support could be better."
"When considering potential areas for improvement, it may be beneficial for Digital Guardian to optimize its processes and reduce the computational demands on the system, particularly with regard to high CPU usage. Although Digital Guardian offers numerous benefits, it can consume a substantial amount of RAM and CPU power."
"The installation is technical. You need to be certified."
"A big improvement would be allowing us to reconfigure the agents and change what to whitelist for a specific user. If the user is not happy with the configuration and is being blocked from certain sites, we should be able to reconfigure the monitoring mechanics to make it more flexible."
"As far as improvements, maybe the licensing could be cheaper, but I think this solution is pretty okay."
"We find that the solution uses up too much RAM and can slow down machines."
"The solution is very draining on the computers at certain moments in its operation, excluding the scanning periods that make the computer unusable until finished. It is a balance between economic protection and client machine performance to our users."
"There are times when Microsoft Windows's antivirus called Defender interferes with the functionality of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. There should be better integration with Windows."
"Kaspersky and most other security products have a lot of modules. They recently added several new ones. You find yourself buying and deploying so many things. There are some modules that everyone uses, like, for example, the orchestration module. Instead of selling them separately, it would be better to have bundles or an all-in-one license."
"We have zero-day detection of malware but it cannot detect other types of unknown intrusions."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
Digital Guardian is ranked 29th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 11 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 11th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 111 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, CrowdStrike Falcon and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Fortinet FortiClient, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Trend Micro Apex One. See our Digital Guardian vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.