WatchGuard EPDR Reviews

We have around 350 endpoints protected with EPDR, and it's been working well so far. We run EPDR with patch management. We can check for vulnerabilities in their applications, patch their OS, and patch all of their applications remotely from our WatchGuard cloud dashboard.

The way it quickly applies configurations to our endpoints is genuinely amazing. For example, if we have a web filter configured and need access to a site that the filter is blocking, a customer calls us, and we can add it. Within five seconds, everybody has a connection to it. Also, the intrusion information, such as the Mitra Tech database, helps us measure the attack surface, pinpoint where the attack is happening, or identify the stage of intrusion within the network or device. It's beneficial. For instance, we could monitor lateral movements of intrusions inside a customer's network. Just about a month ago, we had a case where a customer with 80 devices detected that a kiosk had malware installed. They were using it as a satellite device within the network. We were able to identify and neutralize the threat promptly.

The solution could improve when the solution keeps adding more new functions. Every three months, they launch something new on it. You should activate all features that you need to activate and work with the same client. You don't need to install a different client for something. For example, it's the same client if you have EPP and want to move into EPDR. You activate the license, and it turns into an EPDR.

The solution could have improved availability. When I send a notification, it neutralizes immediately. However, this delay doesn't mean it fails to perform on time. Their notifications arrive a bit later.

I have been using WatchGuard EPDR as a partner for five years.

If we compare Kaspersky and WatchGuard, both are effective and operate at a similar level of efficiency. For instance, they promptly detect and neutralize threats. However, Kaspersky's notification system is more effective than WatchGuard's. With Kaspersky, we receive immediate notifications when something is neutralized. Conversely, with WatchGuard, although it neutralizes threats promptly, the corresponding notification arrives via email approximately ten to fifteen minutes later.

Kaspersky has reasonable pricing; it's affordable for customers. The best thing is when it works together with XDR and the Firebox unit, and everything is connected to the cloud. That's something that stands out among other solutions. It's an integrated solution with Fireboxes, and you can also integrate Endpoint. For example, if you want to log on to Windows or connect to a VPN using the Firebox SSL VPN client to access your corporate network, you must install an EPR solution for Zero Trust security. Without it, you cannot connect.

The product has a balanced pricing. It's best when we offer our quotes to our customers, especially when competing against other brands. Our prices on EPDR are unbeatable; no one can match them.

I rate the product’s pricing a five out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

When we deploy your free solutions, we initially face a risk of around 60% of potential attacks, breaches, and infections as we install the first customers. However, as time progresses, this risk gradually decreases. It may diminish to zero or perhaps one to three percent because we actively patch vulnerabilities, detect threats, and ensure the security of their operating systems. After a few days, everything will work perfectly, beginning from an up-to-date standpoint.

I would recommend it above other solutions, including Kaspersky, with whom we have had a longstanding relationship. What sets WatchGuard apart is its exceptional ability to connect and integrate with various solutions within its stack seamlessly. This includes connectivity with firewalls, EPR, MSA, DNS security, and other offerings, all accessible through a unified interface.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

This is one of the best solutions for servers for advanced users. Advanced users, such as those working with banks and who have to make payments, are exposed to more attacks. The people whose job is to write, create invoices, register products, or do quotes. They don't need the EPR. They can use a cheaper solution.

Panda Adaptive Defense 360 is designed to provide comprehensive security for endpoints. Rather than focusing solely on the protection brand, it emphasizes the importance of delivering a service that ensures the safety of users' endpoints. The goal is to enable users to work without interruptions, confident that their information is secure and protected from misuse. 

The solution provides protection, including ransomware and mail protection. It can recognize and mitigate a wide array of spam and phishing attempts. The software is adept at distinguishing legitimate emails from malicious ones, ensuring that users receive genuine communications while being protected. Additionally, it is lightweight and unobtrusive to users, providing adequate protection without impacting system performance. While advancements such as cheaper data processors may enhance its capabilities, maintaining its agility and transparency remains paramount.

The software can improve the number of messages we are receiving in case of an attack.

I have been using Panda Adaptive Defense 360 for two to three years. We are using the latest version of the solution.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

The solution’s scalability is good.

The technical support is not good because they must receive many emails and information. Also, the response is not good.

Positive

The setup is really easy. Now, you only have to download the agent, but you can also push the agent to the computer. All the policies are managed in the cloud console, making handling easier. 

People don't manage the software because they use computers for daily tasks and jobs. The individuals responsible for setting up the software are from 360. They need a user-friendly, better console to receive emails informing them about attacks.

Combined with other brands, the solution is not the cheapest.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We are using Panda Security Adaptive Defense as endpoint protection on our computers. It operates similarly to a legacy antivirus service. It does not cover all aspects of security.

The most valuable feature of Panda Security Adaptive Defense is we don't have to have dedicated infrastructure on-premise because it is cloud-based.

I have been using Panda Security Adaptive Defense for approximately two years.

Panda Security Adaptive Defense is stable. However, when updates are being done on the computers we can experience some troubles because the computers need to be restarted. When we start the computers they are not functioning correctly and we have not received proper feedback regarding this random issue.

The scalability of Panda Security Adaptive Defense is good.

We have approximately 900 users using this solution. Everyone in my company is using it. Many departments are using the solution, such as marketing, customer service, IT, quality control, legal, or logistics.

The support from Panda Security Adaptive Defense could improve. They are not the most efficient.

I rate the support a two out of five.

Neutral

We previously used Symantec, McAfee, and Kaspersky. We switched to Panda Security Adaptive Defense from Symantec and McAfee because we were not happy with the administration of the solutions. Kaspersky was an okay solution, but they were not proposing the same cloud-based approach as Panda Security Adaptive Defense.

The deployment of Panda Security Adaptive Defense is easy and convenient. It is simple to administrate.

The solution is priced well for what features it provides.

We have one person who does the maintenance of the solution. We do not have anything on-premise to maintain, but there is some administration that has to be done, such as configuration.

I would recommend this solution to others. They are not the most advanced in terms of detection and artificial intelligence and user behavior. However, it is not the best solution on the market, but it is priced well for the features it provides. 

I rate Panda Security Adaptive Defense a seven out of ten.

We use it for our endpoint security solution for 1,000 machines worldwide. We're one of the largest machine shops in the world. In just one building, I've got over 500 machines in there. Some of them are old and come from the World War II era. Some of my machines, like my laser hole poppers, are still running Windows 3.1. I've got a lot of older lathes and mills that are running Windows 95 and Windows 98.

It hasn't improved our company in any way. Panda is the most painful endpoint solution I've ever had to work with except SentinelOne. With Panda, if the protection is turned off or there is a problem on a machine, you have to access that machine remotely to fix it. You can't fix it via the console. I'm the network admin and security admin at my company I don't have the bandwidth to babysit an endpoint solution. 

It prevents our users from circumventing security. Everything is password protected so they can't get into it. They can't uninstall it. They can't do anything. 

It needs improvements in its EDR and its ability to manage all the nodes. I'd like better communication between the console and the nodes, so I don't have to remote into each individual machine that's having an issue with the protection. The console's intended purpose is to manage and I've got half the management capabilities in their console. I've got almost 1,000 machines worldwide. As one person, I don't have the capacity to take care of this.

We adopted this one about three years ago.

It's good for all platforms— iOS, Windows, Android, Linux—so its scalability is there.

Technical support has always been top-notch when you can get through. Sometimes you're on hold for up to an hour, but their technical support has always been able to address the issue and get it resolved within 48 hours.

Prior to Panda, we had SentinelOne. Panda is a lot less work than SentinelOne in our environment. We still use a lot of Excel macros. We've got applications that we created ourselves and are unsigned. We work with machines with extremely old operating systems, and these things run off of applications that we have built in-house. SentinelOne wanted to shut down the applications so that the machines couldn't connect. It was costing us money. I can't give SentinelOne a bad review just because of our environment. Our environment is very unique, so it's not fair to SentinelOne. But at the same time, we just weren't made for each other. 

The setup is pretty easy. Deployment takes less than an hour. It's typically connected to the console, so it has already downloaded the latest and greatest updates or file hashes. Creating groups and policies for those groups can be a little complex but once you've got all that figured out, then you're good. The console needs a lot of help. Even downloading the installer for a new deployment on a PC is not very straightforward. 

I have an in-house team. I've got two help desk guys that I've had to train to use the Panda tenant. I don't even know if they're doing it anymore — touching every machine that has a problem with the protection.

I don't think Panda's license is too expensive, but they're charging more than it's worth. It's a yearly license. For 1,000 endpoints, it's around $18,000. 

We're considering switching to something else. Right now we're looking at ESET Endpoint Security and Trend Micro Apex One. Panda's EDR is rudimentary, so we're looking to upgrade because our insurance policy is asking us to find something better. Right now, we're leaning toward Trend because they're telling me that I can do everything from the console with their solution. That was the biggest pain with Panda.  

I'd rate Panda five out of 10. I give it that high just because it does work to some extent and it's cost-effective. My attitude toward Panda is 50/50. I get probably 10 or 15 emails a day complaining that machines lack protection. But if the console can detect the machine and knows that it's lacking protection, then my logic says, "Update it." But for whatever reason, I have to manually do it again. It's painful. It shouldn't be as expensive as it is. And I think it's going to be a lot more expensive now that WatchGuard owns it. Hopefully, they make a lot of good changes, but I've had enough with Panda.

Another thing to note about Panda is that I haven't seen anything in the documentation about compliance with GDPR regulations. I've got 11 locations in Europe, and we're going to have a GDPR tenant for the most stringent country or area. So even being in the US, I'll have to abide by European GDPR here in the US for all the locations to share one tenant. Otherwise, we'd have to have multiple tenants, which will cost us more money and be more of a hassle to manage. 

Before you install it, do a 90-day proof of concept. Thirty days is too short. You need to see the failing endpoints and what you have to do to fix it.

We use Adaptive Defense for sandboxing, GDPR compliance, and antivirus. We also use it to inventory software and services on our computers. Our company has around 90 licenses. Everyone in the company uses it.

Adaptive Defense is pretty easy to use, and Panda support is excellent. 

Their MacOS support isn't that good.

We've used Adaptive Defense for around 10 years.

I rate Adaptive Defense 10 out of 10 for stability. There are some minor problems when we update Windows to a new version, but it's pretty stable overall. 

I rate Adaptive Defense 10 out of 10 for scalability. 

I rate Panda support nine out of 10. It used to be a 10, but support is a little more difficult since they were bought by WatchGuard because they're a bigger company. 

I rate Panda Security Adaptive Defense 10 out of 10 for ease of setup. It's very straightforward. Deploying the solution on each new computer and server takes about 10 minutes. One person is enough to deploy it. 

You have to do some configuration, and Panda helped us with that. They dispatched some people on site, so it wasn't a problem at all.

I rate Adaptive Defense five out of 10 for affordability. It's average. There aren't any additional costs, but the product is divided into a few different modules. We have licenses for the full suite of products. 

We used others before Panda, and also evaluated some other stuff, but we haven't found anything better so far.

I rate Panda Security Adaptive Defense nine out of 10. There's always room for improvement.

We primarily use the solution for end-point protection. We use it to protect against malware and vulnerabilities in software.

The solution allowed us to crack down on activations. 

Panda is a very good and important antivirus. It allows us to stop activation windows. Users can't activate anything as Panda will crack down on it. 

It's very easy to set up.

The solution has been quite stable. 

Panda should work to be a more important antiviral all over the world. They could do it if they implemented a task system. We have something similar in Kaspersky. Over the network, we can implement anything by the task over the endpoint software, rather than the antivirus. We have endpoint software, and, via this software, we can access the users' PC and install any software and resolve any problems, software problems, or operating system issues. Panda needs to have this capability.

They need to offer a clear dashboard so you can see everything everywhere all at once. 

While Panda is good, we need a more extensive product. It's not as scalable as we would like.

I've been using the solution for a year or less. 

It's a stable solution. We don't have any issues constantly needing to be resolved it just works. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

This solution can't scale how we like. We are looking for other potential options for the future. Configuring each application on the workstation itself it's a little bit confusing. Imagine having to do every workstation to configure the endpoint application on it. It's tiring to work. If we have 2,000 workstations, we need to go to each workstation to configure it and that's just too much.

We have about 25 users on it right now. We do not plan to increase usage. 

Technical support is good.

Neutral

I've worked with Kaspersky Antivirus Security Center 12 and it protects the software over the networks to protect the workstations from any attacks. Kaspersky is a good solution for medium and large businesses. The main difference is how you can solve issues over the workstations. It's easy in Kaspersky. Also, the reporting system in Kaspersky is better as it gives a view of your entire network and of your servers and the attacks from which users. They have a great reporting system in comparison to Panda.

This is a simple solution to set up. It's easy to implement, install and configure. We didn't have any issues with it and didn't find it to be difficult. 

I'd rate the initial setup 4.5 out of five. 

Pricing and licensing are not my responsibility. I can't speak to the exact cost.

While we have a Panda license key right now, once it expires we may move on to something else.

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for security in order to prevent attacks. 

It is a very progressive and innovative software that does a good job of protecting the end user. 

It is easy to manage.

The product has very good protection.

We've never had an issue with it, however, if we do run into issues, they have a good hotline. We can talk directly to them.

It is stable.

The solution can scale.

I haven't thought about features we'd like improved. We're mostly happy with it. 

I'd like to integrate it into my main services. It would be helpful if there were more integration capabilities, although there are a few scripts that can help me manage it. 

I've used the solution since 2006. It was before they made Panda 360.

t is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

The solution is very scalable. There is not a problem in that sense. 

We have clients with up to 120 users. 

I'm not sure if the usage will be increased with existing clients, however, I will enroll new customers within the solution. 

Their support is good. They have a very responsive hotline. 

The initial setup is very easy. It's not a complex process. 

The deployment can be handled in-house. You just download the installation file. It's very easy. 

The licensing is either yearly or every three years.

I've been using the most up-to-date version. Many of my customers use the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I'd rate the product ten out of ten. It's an excellent product. 

We are using Panda as an endpoint production and security product.

What I like about it is the cloud console. It offers centralized management, and users can push the agents through one management machine. Other products require you to pay to have a separate premium for managing the endpoints with a central console, or it is a standalone product. With this one in the cloud, the cloud-based console comes as part of the suite.

They have different packages. At the moment, we have an implementation for Endpoint Protection and Systems Management.

The remote control we achieve is the most useful aspect. In the systems management component, which is a separate license, there's this remote control feature, and you have something called privacy mode, where you can remote to a certain user system. The user can approve it or reject the request, and every action is audited. 

It offers an easy initial setup. 

The solution is stable. 

We can scale the solution.

The pricing is decent. 

I'm still learning the product, so it is difficult to see what is lacking. At the moment, it suits our needs.  

They could have more reports. I'm not sure if they are already there. Currently, I'm on the console, and I don't see specific reports I could generate. For example, reporting related to the history of events that happened on a system, like a flashback report.

It could apply some sort of artificial intelligence based on the industry background as to what is a critical, medium, or low alert.

Technical support could be better. 

I've used the solution for around a year. 

The solution has been stable. There are no blue screens or hanging. It is reliable and works well.

Even the reporting shows that it's actually detecting malware and viruses or attacks. Anything of that sort, you will have visibility on. It's quite good, actually. I'd rate it eight out of ten. 

We have three clients we have done deployments for.

It can scale. 

It's all license based, so you can easily scale it up.

I'd rate the ability to scale eight out of ten. 

I've dealt with support in the past. Maybe it did not meet up as much as the marketing. Maybe there's room for improvement there. We are working with a distributor in this region. There's a channel partnership here, and you have to go through the distributor all the time. The support experience is not good.

It would be a good idea if the vendor shared more information with the integrators since integrators act as support to customers. They need to be easier to reach or they have to get better at disseminating information. 

Neutral

We were using ESET, and they charged extra for cloud protection, which I don't like. In contrast, that is already there in this.

The setup process is very simple and straightforward. 

As long as you have a common admin user across the computers in your network, it goes ahead and discovers everything, and you can assign one of the systems as a management system, and you can push the agent to all the systems. You don't have to go to each and every system to deploy the agent; that's really a pain. 

The console is managed from the cloud. It's deployed on the endpoint, which is the laptop of the user.

I'd rate the ease of deployment eight out of ten. 

We are system integrators and can easily set up the solution ourselves. 

The pricing is quite competitive. I'd rate the cost eight out of ten in terms of affordability. 

We're integrators and resellers. 

The solution does its job pretty well. We're in a region where there are a lot of ransomware attacks, and so far, we haven't had to deal with anything like that. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.