We performed a comparison between HP Wolf Security and Kaspersky Total Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"It is stable and scalable."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"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."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The most valuable feature is the process isolation because it simply stops malware from infecting the machines."
"The isolation feature is the most important because it prevents attacks."
"The feature that stands out the most is that when someone clicks on a link in an email... [if] that link is malicious and it has some malware or keylogger attached to it, when it opens up in that Bromium virtualized browser, there's no chance of it actually being on the machine and running, because as soon as they click that "X" in the upper right-hand side of the browser, everything just vanishes. That is an added plus."
"We've been able to isolate and prevent malicious code from external email attachments and from downloaded internet files. Those are the two big areas that have really made an impact."
"It has prevented thousands of potential threats by encapsulating them within its own vSentry container, thus providing overall protection and integrity of the operating system."
"Now, instead of us having to go through that analysis, they actually give us a monthly report that shows us: "Here's what you got hit with, here's what would have happened, here are the forensics behind the attack," and, obviously, Bromium stopped it."
"Our overall security posture has absolutely improved as a result of adding Bromium to our security stack. We continue to have less user impact through a significantly reduced amount of malware infections. It's become a non-event."
"I use HP Wolf Security to add a layer of safety, especially for laptops operating in various environments."
"The solution is useful for protecting laptops."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it can be centrally managed, allowing users to know what is happening and what can be expected in the systems."
"Kaspersky is reliable because it checks everything before I want to log in."
"Kaspersky Total Security is a stable solution...Kaspersky Total Security is a scalable solution."
"The software is easy to install."
"The solution is efficient."
"I installed Kaspersky for protection if there is a virus on my computer"
"Kaspersky Total Security is a light agent."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"Detections could be improved."
"They have always struggled with usability. The protection that it offers you is tremendous, but there's definitely an impact with use of resources on the computer. It's gotten a lot better now with Win 10. But sometimes, when you open up a website, it's going to take longer than it would without Bromium, and it's the same with documents."
"Initial setup was complex. There were many configurations that needed to be worked out with the vendor. The setup required hands-on assistance from Bromium."
"I did not find this to be an out-of-the-box solution, it required planning and alignment across many groups."
"They need to improve the compatibility with other applications and its stability. It works well with attacks, but it doesn't work well with all software on the clients. There is a lot of troubleshooting and a lot of things that need to be tuned to make it work and not break things."
"The tool behaves differently when I ported to Windows 11."
"Initially, when we came in contact with Bromium a few years ago, it had a nice threat analyst, or a LAVA Pop, which is what they used to call it. Once it detected malware, it would show us the malware's path... I don't see that on the computers now. We only get to see that in the console. I would like to still see that on the individual machines because when we go out to look at a machine, we don't necessarily have access to the console."
"Room for improvement would be keeping up with the rate of change, specifically on Windows platforms. There are a lot of updates that come out for Microsoft Windows operating systems and the Bromium product needs to be able to keep up quickly with those updates and all the browser updates that are coming out. It's hard to do, but that's really where they need to be more responsive because we end up with problems and then we have to call support to get patches, etc."
"Reporting is one of the shortcomings of the product. We do mine the data that's in there from a forensics perspective... It becomes very difficult because you have to spend a lot of time digging through the volumes of data. Reporting is absolutely the biggest shortcoming."
"The tool could be cheaper."
"Kaspersky Total Security's configuration part is complex."
"The authorization process could be faster."
"The stability of the solution could be improved because we had some issues with the solution on non-Windows laptops."
"The solution’s email protection area should be improved."
"Regarding improvement, Kaspersky has a slightly larger system footprint, leading to a 5-10% performance slowdown compared to when I wasn't using Kaspersky."
"Enhancing the encryption code, particularly in relation to ransomware would be a great addition for future use."
"Anti-malware and anti-phishing policies in the solution are areas with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
HP Wolf Security is ranked 49th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 8 reviews while Kaspersky Total Security is ranked 29th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 19 reviews. HP Wolf Security is rated 7.8, while Kaspersky Total Security is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of HP Wolf Security writes "Adds a layer of safety, especially for laptops operating in various environments". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Total Security writes "Highly-efficient solution for process optimization ". HP Wolf Security is most compared with Norton Small Business, Bitdefender Total Security, Microsoft Defender for Business, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, whereas Kaspersky Total Security is most compared with Norton Small Business and Bitdefender Total Security. See our HP Wolf Security vs. Kaspersky Total Security report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.
