We performed a comparison between Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud and Sangfor Endpoint Secure 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."Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"It is stable and scalable."
"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."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The product works perfectly to prevent malware in our organization."
"In Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud, anti-phishing and anti-malware are two very powerful aspects."
"The most valuable component of the solution is the malware detection feature."
"It is a powerful tool for zero-day attack prevention."
"In terms of software performance, it has been effective in providing good security."
"The standout features of Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud include its cloud-based console and the simplicity of managing endpoints."
"We had the cloud suite of KasperskyEndpoint Security Cloud, and its monitoring was fine."
"The user-friendliness of Sangfor Endpoint Secure is particularly impressive. Even with basic technical knowledge, users can easily navigate the system, make changes, and implement updates."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure has some good policy certificates."
"The tool's most valuable features are control access, endpoint security, and load balancing of ISPs."
"What stands out to me is the dual-end user interface they provide."
"We use the product for network protection from any malicious threat."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The most valuable feature I have found in the system is its comprehensive end-to-end protection."
"The solution is not stable."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"It requires specific expertise or certified professionals to deploy the product. There is a need to expand the offerings to various industries covering different-sized businesses."
"One area where the product could be improved is in its delivery and installation process."
"The solution’s stability could be improved because we earlier faced an issue where the solution was not detecting file-less malware."
"Certain shortcomings in the anti-ransomware part of the solution need improvement. XDR and MDR, along with threat hunting, a big step in cybersecurity today, need improvement."
"Sometimes, the tool consumes a lot of resources from the endpoints, making it an area of concern where improvements are required since it currently consumes a little bit of RAM."
"The tool's update management can be better. In future releases, the addition of a DLP module would be valuable."
"Kaspersky's global ranking has been on the decline."
"There are a few areas for improvement. We have encountered licensing issues on occasion, and sometimes updates don't apply properly."
"Sometimes, the VPN is not secure and doesn't work properly in Sangfor Endpoint Secure."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure performs poorly."
"I believe Sangfor Endpoint Secure could improve in terms of its user interface and management capabilities."
"It is complicated to establish a tunnel due to technical issues in the VPN system."
"It would be much more convenient if the migration tool could be installed directly on the customer's VMs, enabling a smoother migration process to the new infrastructure, with potential restrictions addressed accordingly."
"Currently, the tool lacks reporting functionalities."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud is ranked 31st in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 7 reviews while Sangfor Endpoint Secure is ranked 30th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 7 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud is rated 8.2, while Sangfor Endpoint Secure is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud writes "Has a straightforward setup process and good technical support services ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sangfor Endpoint Secure writes "Provides a unified and multi-layer security solution". Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud is most compared with Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, whereas Sangfor Endpoint Secure is most compared with Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon, Open EDR and Bitdefender GravityZone EDR. See our Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud vs. Sangfor Endpoint Secure 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.