We performed a comparison between Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response and Trellix Active Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike and others in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)."The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"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."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"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 product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"Kaspersky offers more visible and comprehensive features compared to other products."
"It is a stable solution...It is a very scalable solution."
"Kaspersky EDR offers automated response capabilities, enhancing efficiency by enabling quick investigation and response to potential threats on Android devices."
"One of the good features is the provider's Faulting capability. If any of our systems detect malware, we can check the behavior of the malware by sending it to Kaspersky's sandbox environment. This helps us assess how destructive the malware is. After analyzing it, we can create use cases and protection measures based on that behavior. So, this is the best feature of Kaspersky."
"One of the most valuable aspects of Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions is their ability to detect and respond to spam and viruses in their early stages."
"The tool's performance and prevention are amazing."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The solution is scalable."
"It's a little lighter compared to the older version, which was mostly signature-based."
"We are hoping to automate detection and response and take advantage of user behavior analytics, given that we are working from home. About half of our workers are still remote, so Active Response gives us that visibility and lets us automate a number of those events."
"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."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The solution is not stable."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"The product does not detect zero-day threats."
"Enhancing user-friendliness should be a priority."
"One of the main areas where the tool could improve is its integration capabilities. For example, I find it challenging to integrate it with other solutions. It would be helpful if the tool could make it more open to integration with other tools."
"I want to be able to use the product as a patch management tool for my endpoints since it is an area that is not working effectively for me."
"The main issue was compatibility with the cloud itself. The CPU usage immediately spiked, causing the machines to hang and sometimes even forcing server or computer restarts."
"Kaspersky EDR could be improved by adding network detection capabilities to enhance convenience and security."
"Incorporating an AI protection tool with the capability to detect and prevent zero-day threats, particularly those with a five-star rating in terms of severity would be beneficial."
"There is room for improvement in the support."
"There are some components on the cloud that should also reside in the on-prem deployment models but don't."
"I also expected Active Response 's user interface to be much more analytical."
"While the product is good, we are currently facing support issues."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is ranked 24th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 15 reviews while Trellix Active Response is ranked 57th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR). Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is rated 8.0, while Trellix Active Response is rated 6.4. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response writes "Provides the ability to send detected malware to Kaspersky's sandbox environment for behavioral analysis". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Active Response writes "Lighter with good stability and pretty good technical support". Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is most compared with Sangfor Endpoint Secure and CrowdStrike Falcon, whereas Trellix Active Response is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS).
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.