Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Reviews

We use this solution and we also implement it for customers. We mainly use it for its anti-malware and threat protection capabilities. If a client comes to us who uses Office 365, then we suggest this solution.

At the moment we have between 10 to 50 customers.

We definitely plan to keep using this solution. We're currently just pushing out all other solutions because they're not integrated and they have additional deployment costs. The only thing which is a bit peculiar is that you need to convince the customer that you're not talking about an antivirus solution. If we do, then they end up comparing things that are incomparable.

The primary advantage is that you don't need to install it. It's included in the Windows 10 delivery.

It's part of the Microsoft 365 suite, so it's integrated. We also use it for collaboration with other components within the suite. These two things are the most important for us at the moment.

Some integration components for Mac should be added. We use both Windows 10 desktops and Mac desktops, but presently, the Mac component is still lagging a bit behind. However, I think this is a temporary case.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for roughly one year.

On Mac, it's quite unstable and unusable; however, it's very stable for Windows. We're content with what it does and how it works.

It's on the cloud, so scalability is not an issue.

We've had no problems with customer support.

There's no installation to be done on the device itself, so it's quite easy. Configuration takes roughly two to three days.

Our company acts as both a consultant and integrator. 

Licensing options vary. Some customers buy it as an enterprise agreement and pay yearly. Others buy it as a CSP, so they pay per month. It completely depends on the customer's needs.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. Some integration components on Mac should be improved. It should be more stable on Mac. If they fixed this, I would give it a rating of ten.

I primarily use Defender for web protection.

I've been using Defender for over ten years.

Defender is stable enough and is competitive with the other products in the market.

The scalability could be improved - I would rate it between a seven and an eight.

The initial setup was not complicated. 

We implemented using a Microsoft team.

Defender is available on a yearly subscription.

Defender is an ideal solution for web security. I would rate it as seven out of ten.

I primarily use this solution for the safety of my PC. It protects me against ransomware and other types of viruses.

Microsoft Defender has indicated problems with some websites that I was able to remove.

A few years ago, when I was using a different product, I was affected by a virus that destroyed everything. Since using Microsoft Defender, I have not had this kind of problem.

The most valuable feature is that it helps protect me against any type of virus that might attack my system.

The performance is good.

Lowering the price would be an improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Defender Antivirus for the last three years.

Stability-wise, this is a strong product and it works better than other anti-virus solutions.

Prior to this solution, I had used different anti-virus products. One of them was a solution by Kaspersky, which I used for a long time. When I was using it, my PC was running very slow. Sometimes, I was not able to access legitimate websites because Kaspersky blocked them. I found that it blocked many websites that were legally valid, which was frustrating.

Because of these reasons, I switched products.

I used another product after Kaspersky for one year but it was not good either.

Installing this solution on the computer is easy to do.

While expensive, the service it provides is good, which is why we are using it.

Microsoft Defender is an expensive product in my country.

I would recommend my friends and colleagues use Microsoft Defender because it always protects us against ransomware and viruses. 

In summary, this is a great product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I am using the solution for personal data protection.

The main features of this solution are that it handles everything by itself and is well integrated.

There could be an increase in security for the solution.

I have been using this solution for a couple of years.

The solution has been stable.

In my experience, the solution has been scalable.

There is no license needed, the solution comes with Microsoft Windows.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Microsoft Defender Antivirus a nine out of ten.

Our primary use for the solution is threat detection and response.

It's basically for security implementation, response planning capabilities and other security functions. Obviously, auditing, HR, requirements, legals, auditing, banking, and financial services all require a lot of the data that are generated and reported out of the platform.

The features that are most valuable for us are cloud analytics from the APT (Advanced Threat Protection) engine or quarantine, deletion, and removal. Basically, they work by web engine. Simply, it is proactive in resolving potential issues.

There are certain features that do have room for improvement. I think with the analytics engine they're looking at it from the desktop and the server perspective. I think the desktop engine should also include the script analytics — what executed, what's the power shelf or UI commands, or some form of Splunk regex. I know we don't have that functionality with a run-time analytics platform, but it's a JS (JavaScript) based one. So it would be good if they had a regex to JS converter.

The biggest problem is they need to take things out of preview. I know that they're developing on the platform service with the analytics engine, but so many services still rate it as a preview after 12 to 18 months, which is stopping adoption with businesses knowing that that solution could be filled and redirected at any time. So that delay is limiting technology to be able to be updated because they don't have to release all production support.

In the last 12 months, we've moved up to the Gartner Magic Quadrant report as a leading form of threat analysis. Obviously, the more clients that migrate to Cloud Services the more analytics platforms are picking it up. There are auto-resolutions and it's getting more cross-correlations between tendency. So we're getting a lot more APT (Applied Predictive Technologies) and IOC (Indicators of Compromise) data through which you can get a better response, better response times, automatic remediation tasks, reduce the amount of the alerts and false positives — that sort of thing. It's all really useful. It's scaling out on its own.

We get direct support. They're literally across the road from us. We've got multiple Microsoft engineers assigned to our contract as well, so we deal directly with their engineering teams.

The setup was simple and straightforward.

Here we SCOM (System Center Operations Manager) SCCM (System Center Configuration Manager) deployment for pushing out the agent's, done the deployment for the AIP (Azure Information Protection) scanners and load that unified data locally.

We consulted with Microsoft, but we're a full IT workhouse so we have qualified engineers that were coming off a three-year capability program to deliver all of those services.

As far as the amount of staff we use to support the solution, we have a lot of managed providers and different international SOC (Security Operations Center) teams and different agencies that manage a lot of the services. I would say that globally we would have probably about close to a hundred engineers working on the solutions full-time with cloud app development and Kubernetis and things like that.

We compared extensively between multiple services, everything from Azure, cloud service providers, identity providers, platform SaaS providers — we did all that before we sort of consolidated on certain technologies in different areas.

We're utilizing a lot of the services. There will be some future state planning goals, but we're taking a risk-averse assessment on the product. We're more controlled about how things like our customer member data protections, cryptography and those types of things are working. So we're doing still doing a little bit of assessment. I know it's got the ASD clearance rating and certain services, but that's based off the tenancy agreements.

I'd say the product rates about an eight out of ten as it currently stands.

You have to implement the product — there's no choice. You can't use the exchange online protection or the advanced analytics or obscure identity IP protection without the APT being installed on the endpoint. Otherwise you're not getting into threat intelligence or the actions. You're not going to get the full response plan or activities that occurred. You cannot deploy without APT being installed on the desktops and have a full, defined solution for unified labeling. That has to be deployed and tested for unstructured data for at least six months with the AIP (Azure Information Protection) scan that's deployed with APT.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is used for protection against threats.

The reporting in Microsoft Defender for Endpoint should improve. The solution has limited features.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for approximately three years.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is stable.

The scalability is good.

My team did the implementation of the solution.

This solution is part of an enterprise license we have.

There are a lot of other products on the market that have better features.

If you have a mid-sized organization, the solution works well. However, in a large size organization, there are challenges.

I rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint a seven out of ten.

We use Microsoft Defender Antivirus as part of our security solution.

I have set Microsoft Windows Defender up to notify me when there is a problem. I open it up and then decide what to do. The interface has all of the important things that I want to be able to do.

It is easy to use and the only thing you need to do is make sure that you have internet, and keep your organization schema up to date. There is not much to do in terms of configuration.

The protection that it provides is quite good.

The user interface could use some improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Defender Antivirus since 2015.

I had been using AVG prior to Microsoft Defender.

There is no installation, as it comes pre-configured on the computer.

For most people, the price of the license is not something that they have to worry about.

This is a product that I have recommended to my friends and I will continue to do so.

Overall, this is a good product and I have never been disappointed with it. That said, there is always something that can be improved.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is endpoint protection. In general, we use it to protect our devices, rather than using third-party software. 

This solution is deployed on-prem. 

The most valuable feature is that it comes with the package, so there is no additional installation of third-party software. It's also easy to use. 

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. In the future, more and more non-signature-based activities or viruses will appear, which you can see in the market with software like CrowdStrike or other products that target non-signature-based attacks. 

There are two groups: one is signature, which means that people know it, and the other is non-signature, which means that these are abnormal activities unknown to people. If Defender could also handle those non-signature-based attacks or abnormal activities, it would be better. 

I have been using Microsoft Defender for one or two years. 

This solution is quite stable. In our opinion, it's similar to those signature-based antivirus software, and almost at the same level. 

There are about five or six users of Microsoft Defender in my organization, because we are not very big. Other people and other teams like to have different end device software. 

We have a support contract with Microsoft, so we have a ticket system where we can pass questions to them. These things are handled by the help desk people, though, not me. 

It's not difficult to install Microsoft Defender. I don't remember how much time it took, but the process is easy. 

We pay a yearly license for Microsoft Defender. We also have a support contract with them. 

I wish that Microsoft Defender had a feature like McAfee's ePO, where I could have a console to get all the information for my endpoints. I also evaluated CrowdStrike because it can target non-signature-based attacks.  

I rate Microsoft Defender an eight out of ten. I would recommend it to others, but it depends on whether they have their own policy for deploying antivirus products. It's good for some users who have some preferences—who need to follow their security policy or who have some budgeting issues.