Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Reviews

The solution is used for our enterprise. We primarily use the solution for security. We use it for detection purposes. 

The solution offers very high, effective, detection rates.

The solution offers a very good performance overall. It's reliable. 

The initial setup was extremely straightforward and very easy.

The stability is good.

We would always like to see even more security features. It's something the solution should continue to improve upon.

The UI, user interface, could be improved. They should update it.

I've been using the solution for a while. It's been about three years at this point.

The stability of the solution is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. The performance has been excellent over the years. 

We protect around 2,000 endpoints with this product.

We do have plans to continue to use the solution. I cannot speak to if expansion is in the works. 

I've never dealt with technical support directly. I can't comment on their level of service or responsiveness, having never dealt with them directly myself.

The initial setup was not complex or difficult for us. It was very simple and very straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with the solution's setup.

The deployment was quick. It only took us about three or so days.

We handled the implementation ourselves. We did it in-house. We did not need an integrator or consultant to assist us.

In the past, we've looked at ESET Endpoint Security.

We are a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Kaspersky.

We are using the latest version of the solution at this time. I cannot speak to the exact version number.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been mostly quite happy with the product and how it has performed for us.

I'd recommend the solution to other users. 

We deploy it to every computer, server, and workstation within our network and also some home computers and laptops for endpoint protection.

I like how it protects the network and all the endpoints.

Kaspersky Endpoint Security could have more visibility and threat hunting. Right now, if it detects a file, it's quarantined, and then we can't find more details other than the path and the file name. We don't see what process it's warning off and how the virus got in. So, the reporting on the quarantined items, why were they quarantined, etc., could be improved.

We can't monitor outside of the network, so scalability could be improved as well.

The ability to control notifications regarding updates and licensing from one main computer would be great. At present, you have to physically go to each computer when a new agreement pops up. We have about 100 licenses, and this can be time consuming.

Technical support could be better.

I've been using Kaspersky Endpoint Security for the last six to seven years.

It's pretty stable. In the last six to seven years, we have encountered problems with the memory once or twice and had them fixed.

As for scalability, we can't monitor outside of the network. For instance, if we deployed Kaspersky on laptops, we won't be able to monitor all the laptops at home. We lose control, so I think scalability could be improved as well.

My experience with technical support has been okay, but it could be better.

The initial setup was pretty easy. We deployed the administration server and then used the administration server to push all the agents, Kaspersky agent and then Kaspersky Endpoint.

It took about a day to deploy the solution in our environment with about 60 devices within the network.

We deployed it through a team in-house.

It's good, but we want more features. It's good for the price though.

The licensing cost can be about $1,300 per year.

I'm not sure how good the EDR side, the endpoint detection and protection, is. Is it based on behavioral detection or only based on file signature? Does it compare any known viruses to databases for all known viruses? Can it detect a new virus based on the behavior of the process?

If it got infected by a new virus, new malware, it may not detect it. I question if it's good for behavioral detection. I think the cloud version will be better, but I have not tried it.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Kaspersky Endpoint Security at three because other products provide more visibility and more EDR features.

We primarily use the solution for endpoint protection along with catering to Office 365, OneDrive, Teams, SharePoint, Outlook, or Exchange - along with Windows update services.

The solution has definitely improved how our organization functions.

The solution, for what it does overall, is a very attractive solution.

The price per endpoint is excellent.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's pretty easy.

The solution has been very stable for us. We haven't had any issues with performance.

The scalability is there if a company needs to expand.

The reporting portion of the solution is quite weak. It needs to be improved upon. They could do a better job of making it more robust.

There's always room for improvement in everything, however, I can't think of a specific feature that is missing or lacking.

I've been using the solution for well over a year at this point. 

The product has been extremely stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The performance has been good.

The scalability has been good so far. I haven't run into any issues as far as scaling goes. That said, we aren't an enterprise. I've had it as high as 300 clients.

For us, we probably have about a hundred users and I'd say a large majority of those are production floor people. The rest (25 to 30) are front office staff.

I've never used technical support before. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. It's just not something I've dealt with.

We used to have Cisco AMP. We switched over to Kaspersky.

The reason we switched was really related to a price point and wanting to push out Windows updates, kind of more than device management type functionality.

We've found the initial setup to be pretty simple and straightforward. It's not overly complex. A company shouldn't have any problem with the implementation process.

The cost structure is very reasonable. It's not overly expensive, which is part of the draw of the solution.

We're using the latest version of the solution. I'm not sure of the version number.

In general, we've been quite happy with the solution overall. I would rate it at a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for endpoint protection within our organization.

The solution offers many useful features. 

There is excellent integration with the app directory. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

At the moment, the support of XP and Windows Server 2003 is not there. At this moment I need to support of these platforms. However, Kaspersky does not these anymore. It's one reason why I decided to change to a solution that supports XP and our Windows Server, which is 2003.

The cloud needs to be more robust. We have 1,500 users and Kaspersky has issues handling them. It's a problem.

Other solutions (such as Malwarebytes) will scan the same files or areas and detect problems that this solution seems to miss entirely. It's not as secure as we would like it to be. It misses viruses.

Right now, you need to contract another console to integrate EDR. It would be ideal if Kaspersky also offered this instead of having to farm it out to another company. It would be great if everything could be centralized on one console as well.

I've been using the solution for three years at this point. It's been a while.

I'm not sure how stable or robust the solution is. Things seem to get through. While Kaspersky doesn't detect any problems, if you run a scan on the same files using Malwarebytes, that product will find and recognize a virus, and yet Kaspersky does not. It seems that things can get through the detection system. It's not completely secure. 

The cloud isn't as scalable or robust as it needs to be. It doesn't handle the number of users we have very well. We have 1,500 users on the cloud.

It seems this particular solution is dated and needs to change to new requirements.

The technical support is good for the most part. However, I contract the solution with other partners. It's not technical support within Kaspersky. I contact my vendor and they give me support. The support requests don't go to Kaspersky, the company. It's going to another company, our vendor.

We are also using Malwarebytes, and they tend to catch viruses that Kaspersky misses.

We did not find the implementation process complex. The setup was easy. It was mostly straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process.

More or less, this is how long it took: the consult was about four hours and the deployment of the client for 1,500 users was more or less three weeks.

We are customers and end-users. We use a vendor that has assisted us with Kaspersky.

I'd advise those considering this or any other solution is to get data from the companies themselves and to do a good evaluation of the solution. They need to check how good viruses are covered and how often updated happen. Kaspersky needs to do more, for example, in this area.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. We've mostly been happy with it, although there is some more work that needs to be done.

Our primary use case for Kaspersky Endpoint Security is to protect our endpoint machines and ideally we are also looking at protecting our server. However, I had challenges deploying it to the servers. It was making them really slow.

The feature that I have found most valuable is its deployment. It is easy to centrally deploy. You can deploy it on the Administration Console then deploy it to the different endpoint machines without specifically deploying it manually on each machine. Its deployment is really user friendly. 

Additionally, scheduled tasks like scanning and safe rules, taking rules and grouping the different machines, being able to pick updates automatically and deploy them remotely are generally very easy, though we've had some challenges.

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 second area for improvement had to do with machines at one point being unable to communicate with the Central Server or the Heartbeat.

Another issue is related to installations. There is a feature for remotely deploying the solution on your endpoint machines, but some machines can fail. There was a particular incident where I needed to reinstall the solution again and it wasn't uninstalling. So the uninstallation process was a bit challenging. I had to install the machine again manually. They were Windows machines so I had to go and restore the machine again. Uninstalling it and reinstalling it on some machines can be a bit challenging.

Additionally, the way it handles threats is an area for improvement. Suppose there is a particular threat that has been detected, maybe someone inserted their flash drive or something. It does not give me an option to configure. I don't know if I was doing it right so that the threat is neutralized without me having to log on to the Administration Console. Then you go to Active Threats and manually delete that threat. I thought it would be intelligent enough. For instance, if I compare it to the Defend, if the flash drive has a virus it'll delete it automatically or quarantine it and give me a notification. Here, I don't get notifications. There is no feature providing me with real time notifications. I have to manually go to the Administration Console, log on and try to view if there are active threats on the network. 

There is also the issue of synchronization with the Active Directory particularly if I'm using the Linux server. Sometimes you have a machine you have deleted from the Active Directory or disconnected from the network but that machine is still appearing in the Administration Console and you have to delete it manually. These are some of the challenges we meet with Kaspersky Endpoint Security.

In terms of what I would like to see in the next release, I would like it to be a bit lighter. I've used a couple of other solutions and I find them lighter to use than Kaspersky. Kaspersky really has to improve on that aspect of making sure that it's not consuming a lot of resources.

I have been using Kaspersky Endpoint Security for the last five years.

Kaspersky Endpoint Security is scalable.

Normally, we don't contact tech support directly. We rely on the partner here who supplies the solution.

Our license is a paid license which we pay annually. Every year we have been renewing the licenses.

I don't have any issues with the price. I think the pricing is fair.

We have been using Kaspersky Endpoint for Business Advanced. We are making a switch over to Sophos Intercept Advanced.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Kaspersky Endpoint Security an eight.

We use this product because it's a management center and it has good security.

The most valuable feature is the management center. I can do a lot of things with the console on the client.

The interface is very simple.

We have had some problems with it comes to uninstalling it, so you have to make sure that you do everything right.

We have been using Kaspersky Endpoint Security for approximately six years.

This is a stable product.

We have had no problems with scalability. We have approximately 500 users in our company.

I have been in contact with technical support many times, and they are very good.

I have tried BitDefender but its management center is poor. It does not have as many features as Kaspersky has.

I have also used Trend Micro One, but it's not as good as Kaspersky. In Kaspersky, the management center is very simple to use.

I have had some installation problems, but I'm doing well now.

Overall, Kaspersky is a good product. That said, there is no such thing as a perfect solution.  Trend Micro may have a better product, or BitDefender may have one that is better, but I like Kaspersky the most.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for endpoint security. We protect servers and end point users by using Kaspersky solution with additional product of the same compnay if required . e.g sand box solution , EDR etc

It is a mature product and have been using it for long time. It is easy to use and its data base engine is very up to date. Kaspersky solution gives you piece of mind and confidence that you have a proper security against viruses and Trojan etc

We've had clients that used to use Symantec Endpoint Security before they started using Kaspersky. Initially, they were a little reluctant about it, about seven or eight years ago. However, after the first year, when they saw the performance of Kaspersky and the quality of the product and the support we provide, they had more confidence.  Kaspersky is simply more reliable than products like Symantec.

The solution offers very good protection. After almost ten years of use by a client, Kaspersky has not allowed any penetration of ransomware or any other viruses. Kaspersky has been able to repeatedly stop and resolve security issues.

The product is easy to operate and it is so mature in our client's network that they don't want to even look at other products.

All antivirus products offer more or less the same kinds of features. However, Kaspersky has, in my view, two or three features that actually put them apart with their competitors. One is called the System Watcher. What the System Watcher does is (in case of ransomware or if they executed by mistake any ransomware virus in their network) allow the user to go back and retrieve a specific moment in time to recover the whole computer or all of the data that existed then. That way, clients will lose a very minimal amount of data and they can get back to work as soon as possible as well. Otherwise, they know and we all know that once the ransom virus is executed on a network, it won't be possible to recover anything unless you pay the ransom and/or do other stuff. It won't be possible for you to get all your data back.

When they give you the Endpoint Security solution, they also include the feature like Application Control and Interaction, which is also a very good security feature for users.

They have a very good reporting system and they have a very good dashboard for the administrator, which makes monitoring everything easy.

From a business point of view, it's not likely applicable to them, however, I've noticed that they have separated out a few features which they used to support as one package. For example, they used to have DLP solutions in the Endpoint Security as well and they had sandboxing capabilities too. Now, they have separated it into a different solution or a separate cost. They are offering the DLP and sandboxing features with the endpoint as an add-on solution. I'm sure it makes them more money, to be honest. That said, if they had all of the features in the same product, it would be both helpful and put them far above any other competitor.

The solution needs to lower its pricing.

I've been using the solution for 12 to 14 years.

The solution is very stable.

I have been using it for a long time. I have seen it grow over the years and now I can say that it's a mature and very stable product. Over that period of time, I haven't seen it declining in any way, either from a support or a technical side. They have been improving it day-by-day and year-over-year. 

Every year, they bring on some new features. 

It's not a very new product. You don't have to go and explain every single thing about it or try to convince the other person, due to the fact that, in the Pakistan market at least, they have captured about 50% to 60% easily.

They basically have four different editions for Endpoint Security and they offer (from lowest to highest) Core, Select, Advanced, and then Total. You can scale it from the Core to the Advanced and to the Total anytime you want to. It's very easy to do so.

We've dealt with technical support many times. They are very active and very responsive.

I've used Trend Micro for two years and I'm also still working on Trend Micro these days.

We just started using it regularly about a year ago, due to the fact that the brand came back very strongly not only on a product-level but with their support system as well. They are making inroads and a few of their products are very good and tare gaining popularity in the financial sector.

In their endpoint solution, Kaspersky has taken out their DLP features from their product, however, Trend Micro has DLP solution in their product, which gives them an edge. Kaspersky, however, gives you the option to use it on the premises or the cloud.

I wouldn't say that the initial setup is very straightforward and very user friendly. However, it's not very complex either. With a little bit of training and a little bit of education, anybody - any engineer, any IT person - can handle it. Of course, that's once they get used to it, it becomes very easy for them.

If you talk about end-to-end deployment, and, for example, if you have 100 users on the network, it take about six to eight hours, or one day, to deploy everything. Therefore, if you have a bigger number of users, for example, about 500, then it takes about a week.

When I say about a week, it means that after deployment and installation of every single computer they have on their network, they need to still do the fine-tuning. Typically that means waiting for it to mature and fit into their network. Just a deployment without all of that taken into consideration may be just two to three days. After that, we give them two, three more days to see if there is any need to fine-tune the system or the administration perspective. That's how we calculate about a week's worth of time.

If it's a small network, up to 500 users, one expert technical person is enough to handle the implementation.

We tend to handle the deployments for our clients.

Depends how you look at it, since we have secured our environment using kaspersky, we are saving lots of money by not getting crashed or getting our network hack or let any one penetrate it for foul purpose.

Their pricing is quite high.

Yes, we have tried TrendMicro, Sophos and Mcafee.

We are vendors. We actually sell this product to our clients. We also use it on our premises as well. We do the R&D of all the products we use as well.

While many clients preferred the on-premises solution, recently, the trend has changed a little bit and most clients, especially after this COVID situation, have started working remotely from home. With that being the case, clients are now more inclined towards the cloud solution.

The solution can work easily for any size of business, from small, say for even from a single user, to an enterprise level. We have clients who are about 8,000 strong and we have a client who has got only 10 users and they are all happy about it. It's pretty much for everyone.

The advice I can give to other companies is this: they can believe and trust in Kaspersky's tech. However, we always advise our clients that, before they implement and deploy the product, they should learn about it as well. They should learn about how to manage the product, how to do the small stuff and to not rely on the vendors all the time.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use it for Endpoint security, and we manage client security antivirus and device control. We also use it for web monitoring.

The hardware hardware detection is the most valuable feature. The feature where you can block and unblock mobile devices is also good.

We would like it so that if a user uses it on-premises, the server should use fewer hardware resources.

I have been using Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business for eleven years. 

I rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It is a highly scalable solution. I rate it a ten out of ten. Around 178 users are using the solution.

The initial setup is straightforward. We deployed it in-house as well. It's very easy to deploy and integrate it with our main controller and implement it on our servers. It's two clicks. It's very easy to implement.

The solution is comparatively priced. 

It's a very good system. Its centralized dashboard is good. I would rate it a ten out of ten.