Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Reviews

The normal use case was for viruses protection. The viruses were getting transferred through the internet and external storage drives to the end-users. However, I am seeing more often customers are going one step further and using a sandboxing environment for protection against ransomware.

When comparing Kaspersky Endpoint Security to any other solution, our customers like mostly the reliability, and the ability to defend against viruses, worms, and attacks. It is easy to use and very light on the end-user machine's resources.

I have been using this solution for approximately 13 years.

Kaspersky has two kinds of support. Our customers have a layer of support. First, they receive support from providers like us and if we are not able to solve their problem, we involve the distributors' technical support. The customer always has the option to open a ticket directly with Kaspersky, bypassing us. If they do not purchase the support from Kaspersky, then it takes a lot of time to solve a very minor issue from the technical support and development. There is a long queue waiting for support. However, if they purchase the support from Kaspersky, then the support is responsive and helpful.

I have used Trend Micro.

This solution is priced lower than some of its competitors. 

Kaspersky has introduced new products and upgraded versions of Endpoint Security. It is a bit complicated these days, especially their licensing. They are promoting customers to purchase the EDR, Endpoint Detection and Response, rather than going for the Endpoint Security only. The EDR requirement for deployment is a little higher, especially for mid-size or small-size companies. The server they require for the EDR or sandboxing is pretty heavy and costly. If they can reduce the price, then it would have been a good cloud solution.

The support from Kaspersky is purchased separately.

I have evaluated Carbon Black and SentinelOne.

They should have a minimum number of solutions available. They used to have only three or four, feature-wise, but now they have probably seven or eight. There are too many options for the client, they get it confused. All the features used to be in one solution, but now they have them all separated. For example, they used to have a DLP, scanning, and patch management in the Endpoint Security, but now they do not. They separated them into other solutions. It would be better for marketing, as well their customers too to combine the features.

I advise my customers that they should compare Kaspersky with other solutions, especially one which is already quickly gaining market ground, especially in this region, in our country, which is Trend Micro. Trend Micro is also very good. They are a comparable competitor against Kaspersky. Being on the neutral side, I give them both options to use, and then they can decide by themselves. However, Trend Micro is actually more expensive than Kaspersky.

I rate Kaspersky Endpoint Security an eight out of ten.

I primarily use the solution for endpoint protection. It's for security purposes.

The solution offers a very good antivirus if we compare it with other anti-viruses such as McAfee.

It's very good at detecting malware and blocking websites. It's great for local network monitoring.

The solution is more selective when looking at suspicious items. 

The initial setup was very straightforward. 

We have found the solution to be very stable.

The product can scale if you need it to.

We find that the solution uses up too much RAM and can slow down machines. We've noticed that after it is installed the server or computer begins to slow down significantly. It would be very helpful if they could make computers work faster, or, at least, not slow them down. In Indonesia, specifically many computers here do not have high specifications which is why it's such a problem for us.

The pricing could always be even more competitive.

I've been using the product for about one year now. It hasn't been too long.

The solution is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. it's very reliable, even when we update it.

We have about 60 devices using the product in our office. 

The scalability capabilities are very good, as it can use in a big network. It can be used across many computers or laptops.

I haven't personally been in contact with technical support, as everything goes centrally through headquarters in Hong Kong. That said, it's been quite stable so there are not many bugs and it's been very good. I don't recall having to reach out to headquarters to liaise with technical support on any issues. 

I previously used McAfee.

The initial setup is quite straightforward and simple. It's not difficult at all. A company shouldn't face any issues with the implementation process. We used the software for all the computers and laptops in the office and everything went fine.

The solution can be a bit expensive.

We're a customer and an end-user of the product.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. I can't recall the last time we updated it.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

I'd recommend Kaspersky to other companies as it's very light and very compact.

Before using the product, our organization was infected with malware attacks. 

I am impressed with the tool's main dashboard, anti-malware application blocking, DDoS, etc. 

The product needs to incorporate training programs or webinars for users. The solution needs to improve its support as well. It also needs to detect ransomware. 

I have been using the product for six years. 

I would rate the product's stability a seven out of ten. 

I would rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has 240 users for the solution. 

I would rate the product's setup an eight out of ten. The deployment can be completed between 10-30 minutes. We required only two staff for the deployment process. 

The solution's deployment was done in-house. 

I would rate the tool's pricing a six out of ten. You need to pay extra costs for additional modules. The product's licensing costs are yearly. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. You need to get training before the installation. 

We primarily use the solution as a traditional antivirus for signature-based activities such as malware or infections. It's for employing remediation and prevention detection.

The admin capabilities are great.

I have found the solution to be stable.

The product can scale as needed.

The solution could use better reporting. We'd like to have a bit more than just a dashboard and a few pie charts. 

We're looking at EDRs, and MDRs, and SLRs and stuff like that. If they had integrations with something like a Dark Trace or more native integrations, either through an open API or something, that would probably be ideal for us in terms of the direction we're taking. 

It's an inherited system, so it's been here for more than four years.

The stability is good enough. I haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. I can't recall it crashing or freezing. it's pretty reliable. 

The solution has the capability to scale if you need it to. 

We have about 550 users on the product currently. It's used across most departments, except for a few. 

It was an inherited solution. It was already here when I became employed. Therefore, I can't speak to the implementation process. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

In terms of the versions we are using, on the administration side, it's Admin Security Center 13 and on the endpoint side, for the actual work stations and server, it's 11.6.

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. Like all endpoint antiviruses, it does a fair job on zero-day attacks. Obviously, with the next-day attacks, it's going to do more. That's where its strengths are.

I would advise new users to stick with the traditional approach of having a business case and a use case and then doing a proof of concept.

We use Kaspersky Endpoint Security for user protection. 

This solution is deployed on-premises. 

Some of the most valuable features are the security and the stability, which are great. There are some imperfections, but everything is fine. In general, I think it's one of the best solutions. 

Maybe the solution's monitoring could be improved with more dashboards, so there's no back and forth, back and forth.  

We have been using this solution for more than five years. 

This product is stable. 

Our team has done some automating and set up auto-maintenance. 

This solution is scalable. 

There are more than 1,000 users of this Kaspersky solution in our organization. We have plans to increase our usage. 

We have never contacted technical support. 

I don't remember exactly, but I think the installation probably took a maximum of three hours for my engineers, maybe less. You can do it yourself. We had a team of four engineers to handle the deployment. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

The licensing is affordable. We bought a three-year license. There are no additional costs in addition to the standard license fees. 

I rate Kaspersky Endpoint Security a ten out of ten. We have been using Kaspersky since the beginning, and I would definitely recommend it to others who are considering implementation. As I mentioned, I think it's one of the best solutions. Everything is there—the database, information, support—and we're happy that we're using this. 

The solution is primarily used for protection. It's useful for internet accessing and network accessing protection and for flash memory protection from sharing, accessing, and other attacks.

The solution is very stable. It offers very good security protection.

The installation process is straightforward.

The performance is not very good. It's acceptable with the security. That said, the issue is that, when I opened the browser without Kaspersky antivirus, it's open in a few seconds, however, when I installed the antivirus on the laptop or computer and we try to open it, just open the browser, it takes double the amount of time. Without the antivirus, it's opening in four seconds and with the antivirus it's opening in 20 seconds. It's making everything hang.

We've used the solution for about two years at this point. 

The stability of the product is good, and it does offer good protection. However, the performance isn't as good, as it slows systems down.

We have about 25 users on the solution currently. 

We likely will increase usage in the near future.

I've never had to contact technical support. It's so easy I don't need to contact the help desk or technical team of Kaspersky.

Before Kaspersky, I was using ESET. We got a good offer from Kaspersky that had a lower price point and therefore we moved to them. 

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It's very straightforward and very simple. 

It's a server installation. It takes about one or two hours, and the implementation for every user takes minutes as it's around in the background.

For the administration of the solution, we only need one of our technical team members to manage it. For the installation, it takes two people. It might take two or three hours before it's deployed for all of the users.

We can handle the installation ourselves, with our own in-house team.

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

This product costs less than our past solution, ESET.

We're using the latest version of the solution at this time. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

I primarily offer it to clients for their business. 

Kaspersky has four different kinds of products for endpoint security, and EDR is a mixture of all of those four products. On top of that, they have an artificial intelligence feature in it, and a machine-learning feature in it, as a new feature.

Kaspersky is pretty strong as a product in general.

The performance is very good. The product is fairly technologically advanced and near the top of the market right now. 

The solution has very useful machine learning features. 

The product is stable.

The scalability is very good. 

It is a heavy solution and it's not for small networks.

The solution is pretty expensive. 

The installation is technical. You need to be certified. 

We've used the solution for a long time. I've used it for 13 years now. It's been over a decade at this point. 

I have found the product to be stable. I haven't had issues with it crashing or freezing. There are no bugs or glitches. The performance has been great. 

The product can scale as needed. It's not a problem.

I'd rate the capability to scale at an eight out of ten in general. 

We have 30 or 40  customers who are using the product right now. 

The tech support is pretty good. They are knowledgeable and responsive. 

I deal with a few different solutions. So as far as Kaspersky is concerned, it is on the top of the list right now. I would say Kaspersky, Trend Micro, and Carbon Black, these three, are the very top. Technology-wise and performance-wise, they are very good.

The initial setup requires a certified Kaspersky technical person. It's not an installation just anyone in IT can pull off. It's not like some solutions where you just do a few clicks and you are up and running. It's an involved process. You need a strong knowledge base. 

You need at least two technical people (engineers) for deployment and maintenance. 

It's costly and heavy. Price-wise, it's expensive. 

In order to use the EDR, you must have a very strong server as well. So that's where you have to add the cost for the server machines, and that's where you implement the EDR as well. While the EDR itself is probably not that expensive, altogether, with the servers needed, it becomes a costly solution.

Users need to pay a yearly licensing fee.

We are resellers. 

The solution has both on-premises and cloud deployment options. Many clients are moving towards the cloud as a deployment preference. 

I would definitely recommend EDR to any networks that have over 300 users.

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for version and device control. That's why we have moved to Kaspersky. It's meant to be assisting us with device and control issues.

The solution is light. It's is easy on the client-side, and even on the server. It doesn't take much processing power. There's no bottleneck of the applications.

We have the ability to restrict users and third-party VPNs. We have control over the user and application access and have put in place policy-based safeguards also.

The solution has been quite stable.

The scalability is good. 

We have found the initial setup to be rather straightforward. 

We found that, for some reason, some site URLs were being blocked in Kaspersky. However, we have since found a solution. As it stands now, the URL opening issue has been resolved on our end.

The solution could be more secure. 

We have been using Kaspersky for almost two years.

The stability is good. The performance is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability of the product has been good overall. If you need to expand it, you can.

In head office, we are using the product on the client end for about 100 plus people. On the server end, we use it as well for about 60.

We've never contacted technical support as we have not found any complexity regarding the product. It's a product that is easy to deploy and control. 

We are also using Symantec. While we have been using Kaspersky for about two years, we've used Symantec for around eight to ten years.

We also leverage a Cisco-based firewall to increase security.

The installation is very straightforward and simple. It's not difficult. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process. 

We have two personnel that handle deployment and maintenance. One is currently managing it, and the other is managing the client end.

We have a yearly license with Kaspersky currently. It has already gotten renewed after its first expiry. We will renew it. When we renew it, we tend to make sure it's also as up-to-date as possible. 

We have the latest version of the solution installed currently.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten overall. We are quite happy with its capabilities so far. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations.