Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Reviews

We are using Kaspersky Endpoint Security. There are two products: 

1. Kaspersky Skill Center (supply management)
2. Kaspersky Endpoint Security

We use Kaspersky Endpoint Security for manual production and supply production. We also use it for additional control in manufacturing.

Kaspersky Endpoint Security did help us a little but there were still some problems. For example, we had problems in processing payment issues from the gateway country. 

Overall, we implemented Kaspersky Endpoint Security because it enabled us to reduce costs.

The manual production is what drew us to Kaspersky Endpoint Security.

This solution needs improvement in the reporting section. Reporting in Kaspersky Endpoint is good but it's not that great. The platform needs to centralize reporting control.

They should include some BMP features, like a BD board or MP board and some D&B company in the near future. That would be good.

The product is very stable and we haven't faced any issues as of now.

The scalability of Kaspersky Endpoint Security is very simple and easy. You don't need to buy a separate server or hardware. It can easily be configured. 

Right now we have more than 4,500 users. Two staff members are required to maintain the solution.

Technical support with Kaspersky is really good. The response from customer support is on time. We have a Kaspersky support license, so our response time is almost two hours. 

Usually, with Kaspersky customer support, we will have a solution within two hours.

We have seven countries under us. Some of the countries were using McAfee and some of the countries were using Symantec.

The initial setup is very straightforward. The deployment took only two machines and was completed in less than a month.

We used an integrator company and the experience was very good.

For ROI, we are working on some issues. Kaspersky has helped a lot. We get feeds from all over the world. We have to log these and find integrity checks in our industry. 

This is also some regulatory requirement. In the end, it's also helped us plan our contribution as well. For our part, Kaspersky Endpoint Security has helped us a lot.

Our license for Kaspersky Endpoint Security is on a yearly basis. We have a yearly subscription. They have multiple options available at no additional costs.

The remote management and new client process, plus the support, led us to Kaspersky. We are very satisfied with Kaspersky products.

In the latest tests, there were some issues there. We had decided to go with Kasperksy, but we reevaluated McAfee, Symantec, and other solutions. In the end, we chose Kasperksy.

The advice I would give someone implementing this solution is that the management of the solution is very easy. You don't need a lot of people to manage the solution. 

Everything can be done with Kaspersky Endpoint Security. The good thing is that the epicenter of support staff doesn't have to go climbing through the issues. 

They make it very easy for us to manage solutions. I would rate it 8.5 out of 10.

The signature update is done securely.

There are some issues that recently happened with this solution. The American government and other countries banned Kaspersky, since it is a Russian product, and customers lost their confidence in it.

There is too much deviation from Windows 7 to Windows 10.

Kaspersky could provide more training for the local support.

It is very stable. I have no complaints when it comes to stability. 

There have been some performance issues. They provide good security, but this slows down the performance of machines' servers. The software is not updating as frequently as we need.

Scalability is good, but if I want to update any patch or update for 2000 to 3000 machines, it can be difficult sometimes. If it is below 2000 machines, then it is fine.

In our organization, we have 3000 users utilizing the product.

The local support that they have here are great, especially for on-premise. If I call them, they can reach us very quickly. The issue is that they aren't always so knowledgeable. Kaspersky didn't provide enough training for them. 

The initial setup was straightforward, not so complex. 

Pricing and licensing is competitive. It's not so different from its competitors. 

At the moment, we don't have any alternatives that we are considering.

Think about the performance issues first. If I have a very good solution, but it slows down your server performance, then the productivity of your place will go down. The performance issues should be considered. Scalability should also be considered, then security issues. 

We are not happy with this solution and want it to change.

It doesn't slow down your machine's speed for the end user which is why we chose Kaspersky. It's performing great.

We used to have a lot of phishing attacks and all these kind of things for end users so we decided that we needed endpoint security. We evaluated some solutions and found that Kaspersky is the most appropriate in terms of endpoint security and the speed of the user machine. The encryption is a major factor from our end. 

The encryption is the most valuable feature.

There should be some AI involved. We already have machine learning involved in recent releases but machine learning should be more enhanced in the upcoming versions.

The logs should be more simplified and more interactive for the end user. These are the areas I feel they need to improve on.

Stability is very good as of now. Kaspersky has some cool features that every organization needs to adopt as far as endpoint security is concerned.

I've had a good impression of the scalability. 

Our first point of contact for support is from our partners. We mostly deal with them. 

We have multiple criteria when choosing a solution. First of all the scalability of the solution is the main criteria for me, then the technical support, especially customer service. Lastly, the ease of use is important for us. 

The initial setup was quite easy. We only needed some material that was available online and there wasn't any issue when installing Kaspersky. It was quite easy, a normal IT person can do it.

We evaluated two or three vendors before choosing Kaspersky. We chose Kaspersky because of the impact of endpoint machines. Usually, endpoint security software hurts the speed of the user's system while running scans but Kaspersky does not. Another reason we went with Kaspersky is because of the cost. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. An eight because of the ease of usability, the deployment is easier than other solutions and because the artificial intelligence is more stable than other solutions and finally, because of the scalability. 

Kaspersky will not be a headache for your IT team and it will not hurt the overall performance of the end user by hurting the speed of their machine. It is quite simple to implement and manage.

Kaspersky has performed nicely, we haven't had any issues with the end user. Our primary use case is for the detection features. 

It helps to improve our security for our mobile and VMware infrastructure. The remote tasks are great. 

• Deployment 
• Reports
• Detection

I would like to see an enhanced web platform. 

The reports and email notifications have room for improvement. 

Stability is very good. We haven't had any problems. 

I haven't had to use their technical support yet. 

We have only used Kaspersky. The criteria that was important to us when considering a solution was that it would be easy to use and that it would have easy upgrades. 

The initial setup was easy. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. The reports aren't so good. To make it a perfect ten they should improve the reports and web interface. 

Our primary use case is for monitoring. 

Before Kaspersky, I had to control each PC one by one but now it's just one update and it can detect a virus on all of the systems. 

The blocking feature is the most valuable feature. 

It needs more computer resources. They should have more anti-spam features. 

It's a little more expensive compared to other anti-virus competitors like Symantec. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Not a ten because it needs more computer resources. 

A networked environment with workstations in remote stations. The organisation has a HQ where the IT centrally manages resources with AV being one of the resources.

The centralized management is a nice feature. It gives us the leeway to deal with other things as protection is being carried on in the background. We do not have to keep watching, as long as we have the right updates. In addition, it saves us time. 

The centralised management console. Ability to discover machines and see their realtime state. Integration with AD also helps in identifying sources of infection and acting appropriately

If someone has the older version of the solution, and wants to install a newer version, they must remove all of the previous applications. Otherwise, there will be issues with the solution in the long run. There should be a remover tool that is embedded on the agent. Then, it could check on incompatible previous versions and remove the same on the background. This needs improvement. There have been cases where one installs newer versions on top of existing version e.g 10.2 on top of 10.1 going onto 11.0 the upgrades will refuse to install requiring one to clean the machine of any trace of Kaspersky using the removal tool. In settings where centralised management is used the requirement that you handle an single computer is time consuming. I just want to be pushing the patches and upgrades without a hustle.

I think that there are issues of agents and the upgrades. 

The stability is OK. I have not had any crashing at all. I also have not had to repair the application. Any patches that I have to do, I do it and move on.

Scaling is fine. 

The licensing is fine, and it is well within reasonable rates.

It performs quite well as a firewall protection provider. 

I would like to see better reporting. 

So far, the stability is good. 

I personally have not used tech support, but my colleagues have. There are not too many issues necessary for us to contact tech support. 

I would say that the variety of features that Kaspersky provides is a benefit to any user.

This solution hasn't really been improved any functionality on the organizational level except that there are no complaints related to the endpoint protection. With the new update, they have incorporated some advanced protection and behavior detection. We have gained advanced threat protection without investing more into it.

According to my security engineer, Kaspersky essentially protects the devices. Before Kaspersky, we had other solutions that always had some problems with phishing, malware, and other threats. After using Kaspersky, we never have those issues.

Prior to using this solution, we also had performance complaints from users. Now, with Kaspersky, we never have performance issues. I would say it is the protection. Yes, there is the ability to protect against normal malware and the performance of the endpoint. It doesn't degrade any performance while working.

I would like to have more forensic features. For example, if we are hit by an attack, I would like to have tools to investigate what kind of attack, who has attacked, how it was attacked, and what we could do to stop this kind of attack in the future. I would like to have more forensics capability built into Kaspersky.

On a scale of one to nine, I would give this solution a nine. It is highly stable. It is live, and constantly updating and stable.

In terms of scalability, I would not give it such a high rating. I would rate it a four out of ten. If I want to scale beyond, let's say 500 times, then I will have to read, and do my back-end. It does not have the architecture or structure to scale up.

The initial setup was not easy. We had to consult a help-desk during the process.

It is a cost-effective product.

We switched to Kaspersky because we had issues with other solutions. There were performance issues amongst other things. We switched to Kaspersky because we researched other opinions. 

Because of our security information, it is a good idea not to have a single endpoint protection solution for a long time. It is good to change the endpoint solution, after three or four years, for example. There should be a change in the endpoint solution because, let's say, most vendors are good at forensics. They also have a forensic ability. Some of them are very good at addressing malware protection, but not forensics. Kaspersky can do both.