Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Reviews

We are one of the major drug stores in Germany. We are located in 13 European countries such as Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, and Poland. I'm working here as an IT Administrator, and I'm focusing on software deployment and antivirus solutions.

Our use case is that we got to have antivirus. Cyber insurance forces us to have an antivirus solution that meets the requirements the insurance has. 

In terms of deployment, we're using Defender without ATP in the old world. For domain-joined clients and on the Intune-managed clients, we use Defender in combination with ATP. The on-prem clients are usually old-school domain-joined clients.

We have its latest version. We always try to be at the newest version.

In the old world, we have Defender in combination with SCCM. It's not as good as Security Center, but you have all the reporting stuff that tells you whether your clients are up-to-date or not. The ATP Security Center is the mercy dispense of antivirus solutions because it is so much more than just antivirus. Microsoft Security Center comes with the ATP license, and it provides a really compact but whole view of your tenant and the vulnerabilities in your tenant. I feel that my administration got more proactive than just reacting. I can see that my Office is not up-to-date, or a client is using the old version of Firefox or Adobe Reader. So, Security Center tells me all this, and I can proactively update these clients and have a look at the bad guys in my environment. That was the part that McAfee never showed. I could see my clients with old signature files or engines, but McAfee Orchestrator didn't show the actual vulnerability of the client, which is the great benefit of Microsoft Security Center.

The whole bundle of the product, which is similar to other Microsoft products, is valuable. Ten years ago, you had third-party stuff for different things. You had one solution for email archiving and another third-party one for something else. Nowadays, Microsoft Office covers all the stuff that was formerly covered by third-party solutions. It is the same with antivirus. The functionality is just basic. You have the scanning, and then you also have a kind of cloud-based protection and reporting about your environment. With Microsoft Security Center, you have a complete overview of your environment. You know the software inventory, and you have security recommendations. You can not only see that the antivirus is up to date; you can also see where are the vulnerabilities in your system. Microsoft Security Center tells you where you have old, deprecated software and what kind of CVEs are addressed. It's really cool stuff.

We encountered some misbehavior between Microsoft Office Suite and Defender. We had issues of old macros being blocked and some stuff going around the usage of Win32 APIs. There is some improvement between the Office products and Defender, and there is a bunch of stuff that you can configure in your antivirus solutions, but you have several baselines, such as security baselines for Edge, security baselines for Defender, and security baselines for MDM. You have configuration profiles as well. So, there a lot of parts where we can configure our antivirus solution, and we're getting conflicting configurations. This is the major part with which we're struggling in this solution. We are having calls and calls with Microsoft for getting rid of all configuration conflicts that we have. That's really the part that needs to be improved. 

It would be cool to have just one interface or only one or two locations where you configure the stuff. Currently, they have three locations where you can configure your antivirus. Three locations are too much, and there is too much conflict. It is not a one-to-one configuration. There are some configuration settings that you can only do in SCCM. You don't find them in MDM. So, it's not always one-to-one. 

The last point of improvement is related to the quality of service that Microsoft provides. The quality of service that Microsoft provides should be improved.

We have been using Defender for two years. Two years ago, we migrated from McAfee Endpoint Protection to Defender Antivirus. This migration process took us one year to migrate all systems. So, we're now totally on Microsoft Defender on all workstations and servers.

Scalability and deployment always depend on how many of your clients are online. There is no problem with the scalability and deployments of servers because they are online 24/7, but client management is different than server management. We are located in 13 countries, and we have about 9,000 clients. Of course, they are not always online because of which you're always struggling with your client management. 

If you open a call with Microsoft, you're in God's hands. Some of their engineers are top-notch and some are not. We have some strange calls going on for weeks and months, and nothing is happening. There are always the same questions. The quality of service that Microsoft provides should be improved.

We migrated from McAfee Endpoint Protection to Defender Antivirus. I worked with ePolicy Orchestrator from McAfee for almost 20 years. The user interface of McAfee was fine, but the hassle began with Windows 10. Updating McAfee and the endpoint security stuff was always a hassle. We had to update all the McAfee stuff before having a feature update, so we were always in this hassle of the update process of either McAfee or Windows. Defender is a seamless solution for Windows. 

Microsoft has done a lot to improve Defender. There are not so many differences between basic scanners. If you look at the Gartner studies, Defender has really improved a lot. It came out one or one and a half years before we started to migrate our clients to Intune MDM solution, and within this migration to MDM managed clients, we also established advanced threat protection (ATP) with Defender. It met our requirements perfectly, and we did penetration testing for the solution, and it turned out to be perfect. 

The deployment process is okay. Of course, you always struggle at several points, but overall, the deployment is fine for Defender.

We evaluated a lot of different scanners, such as Passkey. McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator now comes with the option to integrate within Microsoft Security Center, but McAfee came up with its solution a little bit too late. 

In the on-prem world, we are using Microsoft Defender in combination with the endpoint manager to SCCM, and it is fine. I really prefer the interface of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, but it doesn't have as many benefits as Microsoft Defender in combination with SCCM.

In terms of the end-user experience, end-users don't like to be bothered with the virus scan. A virus scan is always annoying for the end-user. An end-user cannot actually configure the antivirus and only gets a notification if something is wrong or some malware is found. That's it. There is not really an end-user experience.

The performance of the client is fine with Defender. We are not encountering many performance issues or any serious issues with Defender. When we turned over to Defender, some of the applications that were functioning absolutely flawlessly with McAfee started to have serious performance issues. So, we had to define an exclusion list for some of the processes or applications, but there are always some applications that needed exclusions for McAfee or Defender.

I would rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint an eight out of 10.

We use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint to manage the firewall and provide endpoint security, such as antivirus protection, on the endpoint.

The visibility of threats is excellent. The most difficult aspect of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, especially for a small MSP, is the amount of information that needs to be filtered through. There is a lot that can be done in the portal, so it requires someone to spend a lot of time going through all the settings and making sure any issues are resolved. This is why we added Huntress to it, as it helps with the identification of other issues.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint helps prioritize threats across the enterprise. The great thing about the Defender portal is that if there is a new issue, it highlights the issue for us in the portal, enabling us to easily check the CVE report to see which devices are affected, and make the necessary changes.

The major advantage of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for us is that we receive a great deal of information. Initially, when we encountered the solution, the most difficult thing was that there was a lot more detail to go through, a lot more logs, and settings that we had to configure. However, once we had everything in place, as we are covering so many devices using the same solution, we were able to make a significant impact on our security.

The solution helps automate the high-value alerts to identify the devices that are at high risk of attack, but we still have to remediate ourselves.

We still enjoy jumping between Defender and Huntress' portals. Microsoft has removed the need for a large number of solutions as the Defender portal itself encompasses a great deal. This is both good and bad as they continue to add to the Defender portal. For a small team, it can be quite overwhelming to have to go through the one Defender portal. However, if the team was larger and we had more dedicated staff, it would be great as everything would be in one place.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint's threat intelligence helps us prepare for potential threats before they occur and take proactive steps based on the CVE reports, which advise us which devices have higher threat issues.

Being aware of the issues is a good thing, and with solutions like Webroot Business Endpoint Protection, we may think everything is fine as long as the antivirus is installed. However, with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, we are given a lot of information and become more aware of the issues. This helps us strive to reach the 100 mark on the security score.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has saved time by preventing attacks from occurring, and I have been able to rely on it. In contrast, when we used Webroot Business Endpoint Protection, we installed it and then largely forgot about it, assuming it would take care of itself. Webroot rarely gave us any warnings, which may have been due to the product not knowing what to do or not having anything to alert us about. On the other hand, Defender is constantly active and provides us with updates about the endpoints. This may take up more time, as it is making us aware of a lot of other things.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is more expensive than Webroot Business Endpoint Protection. However, the value is there in terms of the product we are getting. The cost savings with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint come from being aware of the issues and taking steps to prevent them from occurring. The savings come from avoiding the issues.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoints has a quick response time when it detects a threat. From what I've seen, the system is quite fast. It's not instantaneous when changes are made in the portal and sent to the endpoint, but it is still quick.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is its ability to bring together all the data, providing more information than just antivirus hits. Additionally, it has a useful security score that is tied into the Defender platform, giving us a better understanding of what is happening at the endpoint.

Microsoft often changes the names of its products, the design of its portals, and what is included in them. This can be confusing for people who are not using them regularly. There is a lot of information to take in, and the portals tend to change quickly due to the fast-paced nature of the industry. This can be frustrating when something that was there one day is gone the next.

I would like to see when NDR solutions become more widespread in other regions. It would be amazing to observe how that progresses. It is something that we are considering, having Microsoft do part of the work using the dependent portal instead of having engineers from our own company do it. Therefore, I am eager to see where that goes.

The stability has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for over one year.

When testing to see if the antivirus solution is working properly with a lot of different events occurring on the device, we found that the Defender interface can become cluttered. The solution does not always give us a real-time view of what is happening, making it difficult to navigate the user interface. Therefore, there is potential for improvement in terms of stability.

We've deployed the solution in small environments and larger ones. So we haven't had any issues going between the two. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is scalable.

We have encountered two technical issues in the past. The support team was very competent, and when I contacted Microsoft support, they were extremely helpful.

Positive

We had previously used Webroot Business Endpoint Protection, Bitdefender GravityZone, CrowdStrike Falcon, and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is now included in our licenses, making it an easy addition for many of our clients since some of them already had the licenses that included the solution. Moreover, since many of us already use Microsoft products and portals daily, we were comfortable with Microsoft and the solution did not require a lot of retraining. Additionally, the price was another factor that made the solution attractive; CrowdStrike and the requirements associated with it are too costly for some of our clients.

The initial setup is not complex. It is more cumbersome than Huntress because it is not just an installer. We have a package that needs to be deployed to a few machines. We can run a script, or use a GPO package to distribute it. Although it is not as easy as some of the other smaller solutions, it is still quite simple. We can roll out a group policy. The deployment didn't take long at all. We had already set people up with licenses to access a Hive with Microsoft, so the deployment solution was straightforward. Most of our clients also have directories managed through Azure, which made the rollout easy.

The deployment process requiring engineering numbers or similar is very minimal as it can be done through a single group policy.

The implementations are completed in-house for our clients.

The licensing costs for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint are reasonable.

I give the solution an eight out of ten. When discussing Microsoft Defender with other engineers, we agree that it can be challenging to become accustomed to and comprehend the UI at first. Once we have a grasp on the UI, it is excellent; however, initially, it is difficult to learn.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is deployed in systems located in data centers and on-premises, providing a wide range of devices. Approximately two thousand endpoint devices are in use.

Since the solution is a Windows subsystem, it is not difficult to maintain. We utilize a management solution to run many of those updates regularly, ensuring that they are completed regularly.

No single solution or vendor has all the answers, and it can be risky to rely on just one source. If an attack occurs and we are only using one form of security, if it is breached, the attackers will have unfettered access. Therefore, I believe it is beneficial to have a multi-layered approach, utilizing multiple solutions and vendors with different technologies that can work together.

I suggest people do some Microsoft training regarding the Defender platform to become comfortable with it before deploying it to understand exactly what is necessary to make it work.

We are using it as the antivirus as well as the malware protection.

We have not had any attacks, in terms of viruses, worms, or ransomware, in the last three years.

The impact of the solution has been minimal. Employees can work with any interruptions.

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.

I wish they would extend the use of the Security Central portal, even for the free option of Defender. Because, as companies grow, it is labor intensive to manage the AV and detection part of it. For companies already subscribed to Office 365, I think this would be a good enhancement.

I have been using it for three years.

It is quite stable. We have not had any cases, i.e., viruses, that would require a reboot, etc. We have never had a situation where we needed to reinstall the tools as a result of the Defender application or a feature being corrupt.

Four IT support technicians are responsible for administrating Microsoft Defender in our organization. They make sure that upgrades and updates are done in a good timeframe.

Its scalability is good enough. As long as you deploy the OS, you will keep on deploying Microsoft Defender automatically. This is a good option.

We have about 375 endpoints.

I have never used their support.

Before Microsoft Defender, we were using Bitdefender. Before Bitdefender, we were using McAfee Symantec.

We switched to Microsoft Defender because there was a change of ownership for the company in 2017.

We went for Microsoft Defender once we were informed that it would be part of our Office 365 package. So, we combined the licensing for the OS with Office 365. Yeah. We thought it was a good bargain.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The deployment takes a maximum of half an hour.

We have seen ROI. Most of the other competing alternatives will cost up to around $30 per user device. We average 400 devices. Therefore, the amount that we save each year is 400 times $30.

We have been using the free version.

Microsoft Defender is good enough as long as you ensure the environment is well-patched and secure, then even the free option will be sufficient to take care of the entire ground.

We are not looking to increase usage at the moment because of the underlying economic situation.

I would rate this solution as nine out of 10.

We use it to protect computers or endpoints from any malicious software, malware, and other viruses. You have to use this one as part of your overall protection plan.

The deployment of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a no-brainer when it comes to Windows. When you provision a new laptop for your environment, it comes with it. We use Intune to be seen on the cloud for centralized management. There's actually a console where you can go in and manage it properly, and we use Intune to deliver the onboarding.

I like that it's easy to deploy because it already comes with Windows 10. Overall, it has all the features that we need. Easy to deploy, comes with updates, and comes with Windows updates. You don't have to really manage or update the signature.

Integration with third-party vendors could be better. It would be better if it integrates with other protection solutions or other products outside of Microsoft. Nowadays, anti-virus protection doesn't really have to be planned as overall protection for your environment in terms of security. There are really different avenues that bad actors can take to wreak havoc on your machine. 

We don't just use anti-virus. That's really like a traditional way of doing it. We have different kinds of protections. We have our advanced threat protection for email, and we have advanced threats analytics for domain controllers for servers. We use all those. 

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for three or four years.

It's very reliable and very dependable. I don't see any issues with it. In fact, it's the best product I have used because it's integrated with Windows 10. It doesn't eat up resources while running like other products. It's a really well-thought product.

It can scale as much as you want. It installs a very low footprint on your laptop, but the management is cloud-based.

Technical support is average. We call technical support very rarely for this particular product, but it's actually hit or miss with Microsoft. Sometimes you get a good person on the other line. Sometimes you get someone that's slow in providing support.

I've used many products in the past, and I liked this one because I can't really find that many issues with it. I used McAfee, Symantec, CrowdStrike, and different anti-malware and anti-virus programs, but this seems to be good.

We switched because we're Microsoft partners, and we're actually kind of biased about it. We also implement other products because some of our clients use them. It's very hard to convince them to go with another product. Sometimes because of the existing subscriptions, they are unable to make the switch.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We are a Microsoft partner and consultants. We implement these solutions.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint comes with Windows 10, and it's free. But for you to be able to manage it in the cloud and use the console, you need to have either an Office 365 E5 subscription or a Microsoft M365 subscription. You need to buy an extra license.

If you're looking for anti-virus software, use the one that comes with Windows 10, and save your money.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Defender for Endpoint a ten.

It is the end defense against anything coming into our computers and through other channels, e.g., we have some other measures. A lot of our users use Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, so all our servers are locked down. The solution handles what nothing else finds along the way. It is a standard endpoint for computers, servers, and tablets.

What the user doesn't see or experience, the user is happy with. Every time our other services go in and put a stop pop-up in front of what they are doing when they want to visit a website, but the browser says, "No," or they are trying to download a link and then says, "Oh, no. This is dangerous," that upsets users because they can't do what they want to do. As long as we don't get any of that, then users are happy. If users don't feel it or know about it, then they are happy. Everything else will make them unhappy.

Our end users expect to be protected and that everything works. When IT doesn't work as they expect, then they get unhappy in some form. We kind of forced this solution upon them, so they don't have a choice. As long as it doesn't meddle with their normal work, they are fine. For example, when GDPR hit us in May of 2018, that was upsetting because they now had to do some of their work a little differently. So, they don't like GDPR because it interferes with their normal workflow. Normally, users come to me if they have issues with anything. However, if everything works as expected, they are happy. In addition, they expect that they are protected.

When you have something fail and you have three or four different vendors where the fail might be located, everyone just says, "Well, it's awful." Then, you have to go and find out where the fault is. That is really annoying and can cost the business money. For that reason, if I can have one single point of contact when I have a problem to help me out, and say, "Let's find the solution." That is much better instead of having me contact multiple companies to track errors down.

The protection will always need improvement:

• From a technical standpoint, I would like better artificial intelligence on how it does its stuff in the background. It will always be behind. However, at some point, it would be nice if it could get better. It is not bad, but it could always be better.
• 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.

I have been using the current solution since 2014.

We haven't had any issues. I haven't had any bad experiences. I expect it to work, and it works. It is just there. For example, when you have Word or the whole Office package, as long as it works, people are happy. You just have it, and you don't have to say, "Oh, this version is really..." It is just Microsoft. For most users, Microsoft is Windows, Defender, and the Office package. As long as you just use that, then people will say, "Okay, we're just basically using Windows." They don't care about one thing or another, as long as IT works.

As long as things are slowly upgraded, it works, and we don't have any issues, then I am happy.

I let my outsource company handle scalability. I only get involved if there are issues.

We have 50-plus servers with around 125 to 150 endpoints.

Our consultancy has a deal with Microsoft where they can get access to Microsoft directly. We are part of that deal. When we have issues that need some type of Microsoft input, we can get it. However, I will let the consultancy do that. I wouldn't do that myself.

We use different email solutions and web solutions to handle incoming and outgoing traffic. However, we have not previously used another endpoint protection solution.

In 2014, we upgraded from Windows 7. It was a completely new deployment of everything. Every server, every endpoint, and even the old laptops and desktops were upgraded. So, it wasn't just Defender. Microsoft Defender wasn't really the issue, as it worked. We had a lot of other IT that was annoying, but I don't remember that we had any struggles with Defender.

Microsoft Defender is always running. It is doing its job, so it is fine. I don't have any issues with the way it was implemented or how we are running it. We have been upgrading IT throughout the years, but there have been no issues.

We had a migration deadline set by our mother company. We had to stop using Windows 7 and server 2003 by 15th of June, and we started in April. So, it was done in just under two months right before June 1st.

We are part of the aircraft industry. We have been going downhill for some time, and now we are sort of going up again. At the time of purchase, we simply bought the outsourcing with the solution, meaning we would get this many machines and servers using these services. They kind of supplied everything.

We outsourced the deployment to another company at that point in time, who put up all the consultants and stuff. Before that, we had everything internally and on-premises. At that point, we moved it out still on-premises, but not in our own house. So, we built a separate system, then moved users over.

We didn't have Microsoft in to specifically help us.

The administration of this solution is outsourced. We use a consultancy who has 50-plus employees/consultants. They take care of nearly all services: Defender, Teams, SQL, etc. I then only have to talk to one or two people who are specialized in what needs to be done.

I have been very happy with our current IT services provider. We have had them for about a year. They took over from the old consultancy who installed our IT in 2014. Our current consultancy took over in 2020 because I wasn't so happy with the old guys.

It provides peace of mind with really good pricing. It won't be upsetting my budgets or anything like that.

Our outsourcer handled the decision that we were to use Defender, Remote Desktop Services, etc. They just said, "If you choose us, this will be your solution." It came as a package. Unfortunately, that company was bought by another IT services company, who bogged everything up. The service went downhill and stuff didn't get upgraded. So, we switched to another Danish supplier with whom we currently are happy.

Go for it. It is a standard solution. If you use Windows, you might as well go for Defender. With this solution, you have your normal dependencies within Microsoft. This means that you don't have to talk to another company; you talk directly to Microsoft. Some people might go for something else, and that is fine too. However, depending on how big your company is, if you are a small or medium business, you may want to have as many eggs in one basket to have fewer points of contacts.

It is a good endpoint. All the administration is handed over to our outsource partner. So far, it has been good. We have been using it for years, so it is the de facto standard for us right now.

As far as I know, its capabilities are okay. It is up there with the rest of them. Sometimes, this is what Gartner says is the best, the next best, the 10th best, etc. That will always change. As long as we don't get hit, we are fine. If we get hit, then there are questions around what we can expect from it, what we can get out of it, what help did we get, etc., but I would let my outsource partner deal with that. Directly, I don't have my hands on it.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of 10.

I use Defender for Endpoint every day, for example, when a user downloads an unwanted application, we get an alert. Sometimes we have suspicious processes in an endpoint, and we receive an alert for those activities.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint helps in detecting different alerts and potential threats by providing alerts and timelines with detailed explanations, which is useful to understand and close or address the issues.

In Microsoft Defender, there is a security portal that allows advanced hunting. You can query and access useful information from logs and events, which is powerful and efficient. Additionally, the timeline feature helps in understanding which process launched what and identifying errors.

Sometimes, there are difficulties in downloading a file considered as malicious. We encounter a bug that requires several attempts to download, which is a bit of a challenge.

I have been working with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint since February, which is approximately eight months.

The stability of the solution is rated an eight out of ten. It is quite stable.

The scalability of the solution is rated as eight, suggesting it is reasonably scalable.

I contacted Microsoft support for personal use of Defender, and they were very nice, providing solutions quickly. This was a positive experience.

Positive

Before using Defender for Endpoint, I used SentinelOne. Defender is easier to use than SentinelOne.

For the initial setup, I’d give it an eight out of ten, suggesting it’s quite straightforward.

The price for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is about three euros, which is considered reasonably priced. I'd rate it seven out of ten for cost.

I have previously evaluated SentinelOne before using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

I'd advise others to use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint because it's a good solution with many experts behind it. Additionally, it's compatible and easy to use with Windows environments.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use it for threat protection.

It protects my endpoints from malware and viruses. Those benefits were immediate.

And the automation of routine tasks, such as finding high-value alerts, had an immediate impact because I can see all the threats in a single console, and how they are mitigated.

It has also definitely eliminated having to look at multiple dashboards, giving me one XDR dashboard. It's really effective because it is very tough to handle two different dashboards or environment consoles. The single console gives me a one-shot view of the whole infrastructure, security-wise.

The solution also saves me time because there is no need to install it on all the machines. That is automated. Even the mitigation is sometimes automated, which definitely saves time. It saves me about 90 percent of the time I would otherwise spend on these things.

I have also seen a clear improvement in time to detect and respond. It is instant.

The solution's threat protection is mostly AI and machine-learning based. That is the most important feature of the product. It also offers centralized management so I can remotely manage devices.

In terms of visibility, it gives me all the threats. They are showcased in the management portal. I check there and it's nice.

We also use Microsoft Intune and Azure Information Protection and have them integrated with Defender For Endpoint. The integration was moderately difficult, slightly confusing, but it can be done. But the solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response. That is very important. Integration is one of the main things I look at. The fact that they work together is the best thing. The threat protection these solutions provide is very comprehensive and very detailed. They cover different aspects and layers of security and that's why it's very important to have them integrated.

The automation could be simpler on the mitigation side. It has a learning curve. Otherwise, it's pretty easy.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for one and a half years.

It is a stable solution.

It's also scalable.

If I have any issues I can relate them to support. But they are quite slow in responding.

Neutral

We used Sophos and we switched because of integration. 

It's deployed on the cloud and the setup is quite fast. I just needed to add the machines and the deployment happened quickly. Within a day, we were up and running. It was straightforward and involved two people.

There is not much maintenance required.

We have definitely seen ROI, due to the fact that I only have one dashboard and one solution. Our ROI is around 20 percent.

The cost is high, compared to other products in the market, if you look at it as a separate product. If you look at the cost where it is part of a bundle, the cost is okay.

Defender for Endpoint doesn't really help to prioritize threats across the enterprise. It's more of a basic threat protection solution. It's more of a reactive approach, once something hits.

With a single vendor, it's much easier to detect alerts and threats beforehand. Having a single vendor helps.

I would recommend Defender For Endpoint. If you are using other Microsoft products, together, this is a better security solution.

We provide solutions to our customers based on their requirements. We started working with Microsoft products because we saw people getting more inclined toward Microsoft security products. For example, previously, for SOC, we saw more organizations working with Splunk or QRadar. However, over the last six months, we have seen a lot of customers migrating to Microsoft Sentinel because they already have Microsoft products in their environment, and it works better with other Microsoft products.

The main purpose of EDR is threat protection, and Microsoft Defender is most impressive when you are factoring in the E3 and E5 security enhancements. It gives all monitoring alerts on a proactive basis. It generates an alert if it finds suspicious traffic, and it also helps to understand where the risks are.

It helps us to prioritize threats across our enterprise. That's one of the key features.

It helps automate routine tasks and the finding of high-value alerts. Because of the automation, you don't need to do anything. You are not required to do anything manually. It automatically detects threats and blocks them. It reduces a lot of manual effort.

It makes the organization much more secure. Microsoft Defender is one of the leading products. It works perfectly. When you are monitoring daily alerts, you can understand what kind of threats your organization is facing or how it is blocking. Based on this analysis, you can secure your organization more. Based on their automation, they are protecting you, and from that analysis, you can understand what threats your organization is facing. So, you can focus more on that area. It helps you to identify and secure those areas so that the same threats don't come in the future.

It has saved us about 20% of the time from an endpoint perspective. It has reduced our time to detect and respond by 50%.

Our customers also use M365 and Microsoft Sentinel. We have integrated all of these products. The base product is Microsoft Sentinel because that is the SIEM. All M365 logs get ingested for the phishing attack checks, and Microsoft Defender logs get integrated with Microsoft Sentinel to check all the endpoint-related activities. These endpoints include Windows servers, laptops, and desktops. On Windows Server also, we have installed Microsoft Defender EDR. From there, the logs go to Microsoft Sentinel, and from there, a centralized monitoring console works. These solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across an environment.

The most important feature is the way it monitors the threats and blocks them. About 10 days ago, we were implementing SOC for a particular client. The SOC was not yet implemented, but they had Microsoft Defender. That organization was hit by some ransomware, but the hacker could not succeed. Because of the EDR, the hacker could not install the hacking tools. They were trying to do that, but Microsoft Defender completely blocked that. The hacker could log into the system, but they could not install anything. 

Microsoft Defender is a lot proactive, and it can also analyze the threats on the latest technologies. In the case of the attack that happened just 10 days ago, we immediately logged in and saw various challenges because we didn't have any other logs. SOC was not ready, and we only had EDR logs. From there, we could identify that the hacker couldn't succeed because Microsoft Defender was proactively working. It prevented the complete attack.

It is proficient and proactive in monitoring threats. It can seamlessly monitor all the individual assets in real time. Another thing is that after installing the Microsoft Defender agent, your computer doesn't slow down even though real-time scanning is going on in the background.

It should support non-Windows products better. Microsoft is now one of the leading vendors in the security area. So, they should be product-independent.

I have been using it for the last year.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

I have not faced any issues with their technical support. Our client has a tie-up with Microsoft, and the Microsoft team has provided them with good support, but I'm not sure how they will be in the case of small customers. 

We are working with multiple vendors for our clients. We are using CrowdStrike for some of the other organizations. Microsoft Defender has grown in a very big way in a very short period, but CrowdStrike Falcon is ahead of it in terms of protection.

Microsoft doesn't give everything in a single dashboard, whereas with Mandiant or Secureworks, from a single dashboard, you can manage everything, such as your EDR threats, vulnerability detection and response, and network detection and response. Microsoft has not grown up in that way.

It is much easier to deploy for the Windows platform. One of the customers had 3,000 or 4,000 endpoints, and we could do the deployment in two months.

There was a team of 10 members. They were working on multiple things. They were not fully dedicated to it. We had SCCM, and we had to push everything through SCCM. That helped a lot to automatically push to multiple endpoints at the same time.

If it is on the cloud, you don't require any separate maintenance, but when their patch is coming, you have to do the patch upgrade. You can make that automated. It is easy.

It is hard to measure the amount of money saved from using this solution because it depends on if you had any attack, and if an attack happens, how much your organization would lose based on the threat. It was published that in the last year, companies have lost millions of dollars because of ransomware and multiple attacks.

They are now doing it on an endpoint basis. It is based on the number of endpoints, which is good.

We made multiple comparisons between tools. We had not only Microsoft Defender but also CrowdStrike and Tanium. I was working on some of the requirements for one of our clients, and based on that, we started evaluating these three products. We started working with Microsoft Defender based on the endpoints or hosts available on the Windows platform. We saw that most of the organizations are still on the Windows platform. They have Windows laptops as well as Windows servers. 

One of the reasons why the client agreed to go with Microsoft Defender was that it was easy to deploy. We didn't need to spend a lot of time implementing it. It is much simpler compared to other competitive products.

During the PoC, we found Microsoft Defender to be easy to implement. It was able to detect a lot of things, but in a few areas, we found CrowdStrike much ahead of Microsoft Defender. Another difference is that CrowdStrike is product-independent, whereas Microsoft Defender is limited to Microsoft products. Also, if you have any other EDR running on your system and if you implement Microsoft Defender, it'll immediately disable others. In this tenure, if something happens, there is always a risk.

To a security colleague who says it’s better to go with a best-of-breed strategy rather than a single vendor’s security suite, I would agree. I prefer multiple vendors. I am not in favor of implementing Microsoft products in all areas because, in every domain, there are some specialty products. You should focus on that and see how to make your organization much safer. Every organization claims that it has all the products, but all the products are not good. That's why you have to find out the best one and put it there.

I would recommend comparing it with other products and defining what are the most important needs for your organization. You may not require all the features. Microsoft Defender includes a lot of things. Microsoft Defender has its own MCAS solution. It also supports DLP, which is not yet mature. You should see what is required for your organization and then do a testing or PoC on that.

Microsoft Defender works well with Microsoft products. You can implement or install it on the Windows platform, but you will have to find another way to track non-Windows platforms, such as Linux platforms or Unix platforms.

Similarly, Microsoft Sentinel does the analysis for Microsoft products in a better way, but they are yet to catch up when it comes to non-Windows products. It lacks when it comes to analyzing non-Windows products. It isn't able to identify all the threats properly. The number of false positives is much more compared to other products, but still, Microsoft Sentinel is one of the leading products in the market. It has developed a lot as compared to what we saw one year ago. It enables you to ingest data from your Microsoft environment, but I am not sure about the non-Microsoft environment. This data ingestion is very important. Without ingesting all the logs to your SIEM, you can't monitor the threats. When it comes to security products, they need to be product-independent. In terms of cost, it is almost similar to other products, but it is a little bit cheaper than Splunk. In terms of ease of use, on the Windows platform, it is very easy to use, but it is not so easy for non-Windows platforms.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Defender an eight out of ten.