"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."
"The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection."
"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 threat Grid with the ability to observe the sandboxing, analyze, and perform investigations of different malicious files has been great."
"The entirety of our network infrastructure is Cisco and the most valuable feature is the integration."
"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."
"If somebody has been compromised, the question always is: How has it affected other devices in the network? Cisco AMP gives you a very neat view of that."
"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."
"It is easy to install and use requiring little maintenance but applying updates."
"The patch management is very easy, as it can be done automatically or added to a schedule."
"Microsoft Defender can block some viruses or malware. So, it can protect my files. It can save files on Office 365 OneDrive. I use encryption for some files, then I can recover them from OneDrive."
"In terms of the installation, ease of use, and user interface, Defender has been great so far."
"The solution has an easy-to-use interface, is always updated, and is user-friendly."
"The most important and the most relevant features of Defender for Endpoint are the malware and ransomware protection."
"The folders and files protection are its most valuable features. These have been valuable because of the increase in ransomware attacks. With these two features, I can ensure that no changes have been made to our system or endpoint folders and files without the user being aware."
"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."
"The interface is quite easy to use."
"The setup is quite easy."
"I have had absolutely no problem with using this solution, it really works well."
"In Symantec, we have found that the most important feature is Application and Device Control."
"The Detection vulnerability is very effective."
"The most valuable features are that it is easy to connect and global settings are good."
"IPS and the user interface are good features."
"The solution has great blocking features."
"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."
"I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."
"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."
"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 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 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."
"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."
"A concern is ransomware, whether people can penetrate and encrypt my data or steal my credit card/banking information."
"The interface could be improved."
"The central management console should be improved because it provides limited options to configure Windows Defender."
"I am not sure if I will be using this product in the future because of the price."
"From an audit point of view, our auditors would like to have more reports on how things are used, if things go wrong, and how they went wrong. For example, if something got a warning, "Why?" So, we would like more versatility for tracing and reporting. That would improve the product, as long as the user interface doesn't get bogged down."
"The central console needs improvement. Both McAfee and Symantec antivirus have dashboards. These integrate with a server and work on my antivirus or some other product. However, with Microsoft Defender, you use Microsoft Group Policy Object. Defender does not provide a central console. Therefore, if you implement Defender, then maybe use another tool for the central view."
"I would like Microsoft to have some kind of direct integration for USB controls. They have GPO and other controls to control the access of the USB drives on devices, but if there is something that can be directly implemented into the portal, it would be good. There should be a way to control via a cloud portal or something like that in a dynamic way. USB control for data exfiltration would be a good feature to implement. Currently, there are ways to do it, but it involves too many different things. You have to implement it via GPOs and other stuff, and then you move or copy those big files via Defender ATP. If there is a simple way of implementing those features, it would be great."
"I would like to see improvements made to how it secures activities on web pages."
"It is not possible to buy it from the company itself, or resellers in other countries. If it is available, I see that it is offered as part of a larger service. For me, this was not suitable."
"It would be beneficial to have more integration and compatibility with other platforms."
"The Symantec portfolio is not big enough to cover the organization in all 360 degrees."
"It would be nice to see more granular timeline analysis."
"Reporting is a major issue, as it is not user friendly."
"The network forensics feature could be improved."
"That's why I wouldn't recommend it for other systems. It works only with SAP clients. That's why I'm giving it a six. It would get higher if it worked on all networks without the help of SAP."
"A significant deterioration in customer support."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 3rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 84 reviews while Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is ranked 11th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 9 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0, while Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is rated 7.6. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response writes "Provides great blocking features quickly; customer support has deteriorated significantly". Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, SentinelOne and Trend Micro Apex One, whereas Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is most compared with Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Trend Micro XDR, FireEye Endpoint Security, Elastic Security and WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response. See our Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response 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.
