No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Kaspersky Security for Inte...
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
31st
Ranking in Anti-Malware Tools
37th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Email Security (30th), Secure Email Gateway (SEG) (11th)
Microsoft Defender for Endp...
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
4th
Ranking in Anti-Malware Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
212
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (1st), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (3rd), Microsoft Security Suite (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is 0.5%. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is 5.6%, down from 7.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint5.6%
Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway0.5%
Other93.9%
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2736225 - PeerSpot reviewer
Program Manager at a outsourcing company with 51-200 employees
Effective threat protection with room for cost and usability improvements
There are some drawbacks that I would mention. To be frank, enterprises always look for cost benefits, so Kaspersky could implement some price benefits. Additionally, regarding know-how, if I am an experienced person it's fine, but when someone novice is working with it, they need information about why certain actions are required. Security is a field that is very vast, and implications are not known to everyone. In future updates, a quick walk-through and know-how features would be beneficial, such as information text at relevant places. This will increase usability. Feature-wise, an impact analysis would be a really good addition.
Robert Arbuckle - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Analyst III at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Automatically isolates threats and integrates with logging to reduce response time
Overall, I would evaluate the Microsoft support level that I receive at probably about a seven, but that depends on the day. It has been spotty. We have had issues where the urgency level of the Microsoft support is not as high as ours, especially during a data breach or potential data breach situation. We have had issues with some of the offshore support being lackluster. One specific thing that comes to mind is we were on a support call with our CISO on the call, and the Microsoft agent, who did not actually work for Microsoft, is one of the vendors that Microsoft uses for support, said, "Just to set expectations, my lunch break is in an hour and I am going to go away then." For us, it was already ten o'clock at night and we had been working on this for a couple of hours, trying to get a security engineer on with us. For him to tell us that he was going to go away and have lunch, it was, "Okay, but go find somebody else if you need to." It was just the lackluster approach, and it seemed like he did not really care. We seem to get a lot of this when we get non-Microsoft support. I can identify areas for improvement with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, as it is kind of a convoluted mess to try to take care of false positives. Especially when they have been identified as false positives but they keep going off over and over again. It is great for my pocketbook because it generates a lot of on-call action, but I would really prefer more sleep at two o'clock in the morning than dealing with false positives. I would say that the unified portal for managing Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is suitable for both teams as they are all in there. It would be great if they would stop moving things around and renaming things, which makes sense. The new XDR portal is pretty nice. Being able to have it central again inside of the regular Security Center without having to open up two windows is helpful. Overall, I think it is pretty good. There is always going to be something that could be improved, such as alerting and the ability to modify alerts would be a little bit helpful to have. Being able to add more data into the alerts and turn off alerts that are not as useful would be beneficial. It is hard to say what the quantitative impact the security exposure management feature has had on our company's security, because a lot of it is kind of subjective. I think we are sitting at around a fifty percent score still, and a lot of it is just kind of unusual circumstances that we cannot really implement without breaking the organization.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and operation efficiency."
"When it comes to threat detection, it is very strict with file downloads and uploads. It sends reports and quarantines suspicious files."
"I would recommend it to others as it's easy to use."
"Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway has positively impacted our organization by helping us control unwanted attacks and limiting our exposure to risks."
"The most valuable feature of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is the antivirus."
"The most valuable aspect for me is the user-friendly interface."
"The password thing is very good, and the overall URL protection."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the antivirus and child protection features."
"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."
"The best feature is the fact that for certain mobiles you can control your corporate profiles versus your personal profiles. That is amazingly important. Apple just supported the separation of corporate and personal profiles, whereas Android has been doing that for quite some time... Because Android supports that, if an Android phone is lost or stolen, I can wipe out all the corporate-related information from that phone and not touch the personal side. I can separate the apps and I can separate the ability to cut and paste between apps."
"We have very good visibility on our endpoints. The level of information it throws back is helpful."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is easy to load and it runs quietly in the background, unlike other solutions."
"Microsoft is more integrated, more comprehensive, and Defender is part of the Microsoft operating system."
"It's not really visible for the user - which is a benefit."
"The detection features are valuable, as is the fact that it is easier to port these logs into Sentinel. That is also useful for us. It is more comprehensive."
"Overall, I was pretty impressed by it."
 

Cons

"When I do a configuration, I do not know what implication it will have downstream."
"In different locations, they're priced differently, but that's mainly marketing rather than the product features."
"I believe the absence of a procedure is the main issue."
"There is room for improvement in terms of the pricing."
"It might be helpful to have notifications on mobile devices, especially if the same browser profile is used on both mobile and laptop."
"The initial setup of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is complex. The full deployment took approximately two weeks."
"The customer support of the product is an area with shortcomings where improvements are required."
"If a threat actor comes in, and creates a global administrative account, they can gain access to everything and whitelist then block everything else. Having everything, including Defender, under one brand is like having all of your eggs in one basket."
"When you get the right person that knows what you are asking the first time, it is excellent. However, when you get someone who may be new or just switched into that role, it can be less effective."
"It is using a large space in your memory all the time."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint does not provide much flexibility in terms of threats."
"The GUI is very complex, particularly for normal users who work on it."
"Microsoft Defender could be improved with features more like the McAfee ePO. It would be better if I had a console to get all the information for my endpoints. Maybe this is too much for it, but it would be better if it could handle those non-signature-based malicious codes or viruses."
"The solution has minimal customization options, especially compared to Mandiant, so we want to see more scope for customization. A single portal for customization would also be a welcome addition."
"I wish they would extend the use of the Security Central portal, even for the free option of Defender."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with ten being very expensive and one being cheap. It's neither too cheap nor too expensive."
"I am okay with the pricing."
"Personal computer licenses can be expensive if you were to scale the solution extensively. However, large companies will most likely use Endpoint solutions and not this one."
"It is expensive."
"The cost is relatively high, and as a licensed product, there are restrictions on the number of users permitted per license."
"I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive."
"We went for Microsoft Defender once we were informed that it would be part of our Office 365 package. So, we combined the licensing for the OS with Office 365. Yeah. We thought it was a good bargain."
"It is so expensive. It isn't cheaper than McAfee or other solutions."
"The price was a problem for me three years ago, but they improved their E3, E5, and a la carte licensing. In other words, you have to get all of E5. That used to be a problem because you had E3, Defender, and guardrails, but you needed an E5 license to get the management suite and the analytics. It's more flexible now. You can switch from a la carte to the entire suite when it starts to make sense. It's becoming more economically competitive to go that route."
"You don't need to worry about the renewal and purchase of antivirus products. It is bundled with Windows 10, so you don't need to worry about separately purchasing any antiviruses."
"The E5 license is the one that I recommend because it comes with Cloud App Security, which is a good thing to have on top of Microsoft Defender."
"The price for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is about three euros, which is considered reasonably priced."
"We sell this product as part of Office 365 and it is not expensive."
"This is an expensive product and licensing for all Microsoft products is a big issue."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
914,889 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
15%
Construction Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business82
Midsize Enterprise44
Large Enterprise97
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway?
Regarding pricing, I'll be exactly on the brink, neither for it nor against it because being a small company, it's a slightly pricey solution. However, considering the advantages they bring, we are...
What is your primary use case for Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway?
We work with a cloud solution. The product that we use is developed as a SaaS model. In this case, we work with AWS as our cloud provider. We use a public cloud. The tool is good, but they need to ...
What advice do you have for others considering Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway?
That's a very generic feedback. I would not have much information about threat intelligence metrics through Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway because I've not been monitoring it for quite som...
How is Cortex XDR compared with Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface, applies behavioral-based endpoint protection and response, and includes risk-ba...
Which offers better endpoint security - Symantec or Microsoft Defender?
We use Symantec because we do not use MS Enterprise products, but in my opinion, Microsoft Defender is a superior solution. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security s...
How does Microsoft Defender for Endpoint compare with Crowdstrike Falcon?
The CrowdStrike solution delivers a lot of information about incidents. It has a very light sensor that will never push your machine hardware to "test", you don't have the usual "scan now" feature ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Microsoft Defender ATP, Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection, MS Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Defender Antivirus
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Tael, Insolar, Goods.ru, Republic of Serbia
Petrofrac, Metro CSG, Christus Health
Find out what your peers are saying about Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
914,889 professionals have used our research since 2012.