We performed a comparison between Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Kaspersky Endpoint Security comes out on top in this comparison. It is high performing with a good interface and has excellent customer support. Defender for Endpoint did come out on top in the Ease of Deployment category.
"Device Trajectory is one of the most valuable features. We're able to dig in and really understand how things came to be and where to focus our efforts."
"The threat Grid with the ability to observe the sandboxing, analyze, and perform investigations of different malicious files has been great."
"One of the best features of AMP is its cloud feature. It doesn't matter where the device is in regards to whether it's inside or outside of your network environment, especially right now when everybody's remote and taken their laptops home. You don't have to be VPNed into the environment for AMP to work. AMP will work anywhere in the world, as long as it has an Internet connection. You get protection and reporting with it. No matter where the device is, AMP has still got coverage on it and is protecting it. You still have the ability to manage and remediate things. The cloud feature is the magic bullet. This is what makes the solution a valuable tool as far as I'm concerned."
"The solution makes it possible to see a threat once and block it everywhere across all endpoints and the entire security platform. It has the ability to block right down to the file and application level across all devices based on policies, such as, blacklisting and whitelisting of software and applications. This is good. Its strength is the ability to identify threats very quickly, then lock them and the network down and block the threats across the organization and all devices, which is what you want. You don't want to be spending time working out how to block something. You want to block something very quickly, letting that flow through to all the devices and avoiding the same scenario on different operating systems."
"The visibility and insight this solution gives you into threats is pretty granular. It has constant monitoring. You can get onto the device trajectory to look at a threat, but you can also see what happened prior to the threat. You can see what happened after the threat. You can see what other applications were incorporated into the execution of the threat. For example, you have the event, but you see that the event was launched by Google Chrome, which was launched by something else. Then, after the event, something else was launched by whatever the threat was. Therefore, it gives you great detail, a timeline, and continuity of events leading up to whatever the incident is, and then, after. This helps you understand and nail down what the threat is and how to fix it."
"Any alert that we get is an actionable alert. Immediately, there is information that we can just click through, see the point in time, what happened, what caused it, and what automatic actions were taken. We can then choose to take any manual actions, if we want, or start our investigation. We're no longer looking at digging into information or wading through hundreds of incidents. There's a list which says where the status is assigned, e.g., under investigation or investigation finished. That is all in the console. It has taken away a lot of the administration, which we would normally be doing, and integrated it into the console for us."
"The ability to detonate a particular problem in a sandbox environment and understand what the effects are, is helpful. We're trying, for example, to determine, when people send information in, if an attachment is legitimate or not. You just have to open it. If you can do that in a secure sandbox environment, that's an invaluable feature. What you would do otherwise would be very risky and tedious."
"It is extensive in terms of providing visibility and insights into threats. It allows for research into a threat, and you can chart your progress on how you're resolving it."
"We have over 1,000 users using the solution in our organization and the solution has been able to handle it."
"It has helped our company protect the confidential data of our customers."
"It offers very good security protection."
"The product can scale if you need it to."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business's most valuable feature is the ease of management."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the firewall, the IPS, and the patch deployment."
"find some of the most valuable features to be the anti-malware, encryption, and the EDR launching service."
"Kaspersky protects our company from ransomware attacks. We have multiple sites across the country, including the principal headquarters and different towns. We can see any viruses that are in the network and take action."
"Provides good security features and you can view it in the central console."
"The patch updates and version updates are very good. Those happen on an automated basis whenever I'm connecting to the organization network, either through LAN or through the VPN."
"The best part is that it is built into Windows, whether it is a server base or a desktop base, which gives more control over the operating system. Because Defender, the operating system, and the Office solution are by Microsoft, everything is working like hand-in-glove. Its administrative overhead is less because a desktop user has already got some experience of how to handle a Microsoft Defender notification or administer it."
"It integrates very well with all Windows workstations or other Microsoft Endpoint products. It also works quite well. So far, I have not had any issue that hasn't been sorted out. It doesn't use too many resources, so you don't have to install different things."
"Stable endpoint manager, antivirus, and antimalware, with fast technical support and a straightforward setup."
"We found that because the endpoint devices are based on Microsoft Windows devices and Windows Defender is integrated with the foundation and the core layer, it makes it more integrated and more agile in terms of responding to any security threats or changes or development"
"It captures data through machine learning, which is built-in on the back-end. It also provides built-in analytics and a threat intelligence feature. It is a one-stop solution that doesn't require an antivirus because it comes prebuilt into Windows 10."
"It's one of the best antiviruses on the market."
"We don't have issues. We think that Cisco covers all of the security aspects on the market. They continue to innovate in the right way."
"We had a lot of noise at the beginning, and we had to turn it down based on exclusions, application whitelisting, and excluding unknown benign applications. Cisco should understand the need for continuous updates on the custom Cisco exclusions and the custom applications that come out-of-the-box with the AMP for Endpoints."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"They could improve the main dashboard to more clearly show me the things that I want to see. When I open the dashboard right now, I see a million things and they are not always the things that I need."
"The connector updates are very easily done now, and that's improving. Previously, the connector had an issue, where almost every time it needed to be updated, it required a machine reboot. This was always a bit of an inconvenience and a bug. Because with a lot of software now, you don't need to do that and shouldn't need to be rebooting all the time."
"The thing I hate the most, which they have not fixed, is when it creates duplicate entries within a console. If you have a computer and you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, or you upgrade your agent from version 6 to 7, it creates a new instance in there instead of updating the information. Instead of paying a license for one computer, I have to license two computers until I manually go in, search for all the duplicate entries, and clean them out myself."
"The one challenge that I see is the use of multiple endpoint protection platforms. For instance, we have AMP, but we also have Microsoft Windows Defender, System Center Endpoint Protection, and Microsoft Malware Protection Engine deployed. So, we have a bunch of different things that do the same thing. What winds up happening is, e.g., if I get an alert for a potential incident or malware and want to pull the file, I'll go to fetch the file to analyze it. But, one of these other programs has already gotten it, so the file has already been quarantined by another endpoint protection system. AMP doesn't realize that and the file fetch fails, then you're left wondering what's going on."
"We have had some problems with updates not playing nice with our environment. This is important, because if there is a new version, we need to test it thoroughly before it goes into production. We cannot just say, "There's a new version. It's not going to give us any problems." With the complexity of the solution using multiple engines for multiple tasks, it can sometimes cause performance issues on our endpoints. Therefore, we need to test it before we deploy. That takes one to three days before we can be certain that the new version plays nice with our environment."
"Kaspersky could be improved by better malware protection. They have to take advantage of Malwarebytes and integrate the same engine inside Kaspersky. I use Malwarebytes as well because Kaspersky doesn't always detect malware."
"The company needs to keep developing more security measures to help keep its customers safe. If they could keep adding to security features, it would be ideal."
"The solution sometimes slows down the computers of our clients, the performance needs to improve."
"There are many improvements needed, such as faster responses, faster notification, and immediate reports."
"It's grown more expensive and customers are not happy about it."
"The process for upgrades is very slow."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security could have more visibility and threat hunting. Right now, if it detects a file, it's quarantined, and then we can't find more details other than the path and the file name. We don't see what process it's warning off and how the virus got in. So, the reporting on the quarantined items, why were they quarantined, etc., could be improved."
"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."
"Defender's cloud integration could be improved."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint could improve by providing more user-friendly dashboards. They may be complicated for some."
"The central management console should be improved because it provides limited options to configure Windows Defender."
"Microsoft support could be more knowledgeable."
"If they integrate with the EDR then it will benefit this solution."
"The interface could be improved."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is not as robust, and you cannot customize it much, so that's a challenge."
"With regards to the interface, a challenge I found was that there was not enough documentation on how to tune it. I had to read multiple sources on the internet to learn how to configure the tool appropriately."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 70 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 3rd in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 114 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "A mature product offering good protection and very good features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Enables ingestion of events directly into your SIEM/SOAR, but requires integration with all Defender products to work optimally". Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Sophos Intercept X, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet FortiClient and Carbon Black CB Defense, whereas Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Symantec Endpoint Security, Sophos Intercept X, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Malwarebytes. See our Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection for Business (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.
