"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."
"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."
"It doesn't impact the devices. It is an agent-based solution, and we see no performance knock on cell phones. That was a big thing for us, especially in the mobile world. We don't see battery degradation like you do with other solutions which really drain the battery, as they're constantly doing things. That can shorten the useful life of a device."
"The threat Grid with the ability to observe the sandboxing, analyze, and perform investigations of different malicious files has been great."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection."
"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 performance is good. It doesn't use a lot of resources, which is crucial for us."
"The product is fairly technologically advanced and near the top of the market right now."
"I like that we can use it across all the platforms like PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, and all systems for protection. I also like that we can use it for different cloud sessions and different unified systems. It's available on all the vulnerability assessments including, web filtering, email filtering, test protection, anomaly control, and management. There are more than enough benefits available on Kaspersky."
"Our clients are using the advanced options, and they're quite comfortable with this solution because they didn't have any problems. It was easy to integrate it with Active Directory. It is fast and easy to use. It has all the required features."
"It's excellent at detecting viruses."
"This solution is stable."
"The solution has been quite stable."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security protects against viruses and dangerous software, and it's also great because it has a component that is useful for the deployment of software versions to the end user's computer."
"Panda Security solution has a feature to block any unknown process and that is what is best about it."
"It prevents our users from circumventing security. Everything is password protected so they can't get into it. They can't uninstall it. They can't do anything."
"The protection from malware is the most important feature. It has some endpoint information about the vehicle of the virus, malware, etc. It is also stable and easy to install, and they also provide good technical support."
"The patch management module is very important."
"It's very easy to deploy, we don't have any problem or issues. It's most full automatic. It basically takes the assumption that everything is supposed to be a suspect; files, processes, URL accesses, and so on."
"The product so far has been good at protecting us. We haven't faced a breach."
"The most valuable feature is the web filter application control."
"Their remote management (RMM) is very good."
"I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."
"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 GUI needs improvement, it's not good."
"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."
"Maybe there is room for improvement in some of the automated remediation. We have other tools in place that AMP feeds into that allow for that to happen, so I look at it as one seamless solution. But if you're buying AMP all by itself, I don't know if it can remove malicious software after the fact or if it requires the other tools that we use to do some of that."
"In Orbital, there are tons of prebuilt queries, but there is not a lot of information in lay terms. There isn't enough information to help us with what we're looking for and why we are looking for it with this query. There are probably a dozen queries in there that really focus on what I need to focus on, but they are not always easy to find the first time through."
"The room for improvement would be on event notifications. I have mine tuned fairly well. I do feel that if you subscribe to all the event notification types out-of-the-box, or don't really go through and take the time to filter out events, the notifications can become overwhelming with information. Sometimes, when you're overwhelmed with information, you just say, "I'm not going to look at anything because I'm receiving so much." I recommend the vendor come up with a white paper on the best practices for event notifications."
"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."
"The encryption feature could improve."
"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."
"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."
"This product could be improved by integration with Linux. The one limitation this product has is that it's not compatible with and doesn't offer protection for Linux servers. It could also be easier to configure."
"Maybe the solution's monitoring could be improved with more dashboards, so there's no back and forth, back and forth."
"It's very heavy and it affects the computer's performance."
"There are quite a number of areas for improvement. The first area for improvement is that I find this solution to be very resource intensive when you're running a particular task, even a mere scanning task, even though it's running in the background. When you go to inspect the resources you realize it makes the machine very slow. It takes up a lot of resources even though there are no particular scanning tasks scheduled to run. That's one of the issues."
"The process for upgrades is very slow."
"The gap between the two final conclusions is a problem, whether or not a file is known to be malware or is known to be safe."
"The Linux installation is performed on the command line and they need a package installer for that operating system."
"They need to expand their offering of add-ons to enhance capabilities further."
"The only part I really don't use as much is their firewall. It's a bit superfluous. Most people have their own firewall in place, so they don't really need that part portion of the solution."
"Improvements could be made in terms of how the reporting is structured."
"It needs some improvements in the DNS security feature. Currently, it does not have full DNS security. It only has semi-DNS security, which can be improved. It is an important feature for us, and it would be really good if they can improve the DNS security feature. Our group has some plans to change to Cisco AMP, which has features such as DNS, Umbrella. We are trying to learn about Cisco AMP and compare it with Panda."
"It needs improvements in its EDR and its ability to manage all the nodes. I'd like better communication between the console and the nodes, so I don't have to remote into each individual machine that's having an issue with the protection."
"Occasionally, we suffer from little bugs that give us the wrong message."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Panda Security Adaptive Defense Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 13th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 71 reviews while Panda Security Adaptive Defense is ranked 24th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 8 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0, while Panda Security Adaptive Defense is rated 7.8. 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 Panda Security Adaptive Defense writes "Managing multiple machines is a pain, but support is top notch". Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Sophos Intercept X, Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, SentinelOne and Seqrite Endpoint Security, whereas Panda Security Adaptive Defense is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, ESET Endpoint Security, Sophos Intercept X, CrowdStrike Falcon and Trend Micro Apex One. See our Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business vs. Panda Security Adaptive Defense 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.
