Kaspersky Endpoint Security vs. Trellix Endpoint Security ENS

Anytime you are managing multiple servers and workstations on a network, having a good Security Center to assist with that management is critical. Kaspersky Security Center provides that and gives the administrator the tools and reports necessary to properly manage and monitor these systems across a network. This is a VERY useful tool and it makes my job much easier.

Incentivized

During the pandemic all our users worked remotely that was challenging from security perspective, so we had to deploy the endpoint protection system with cloud based monitoring server. By doing that we were able to keep safety for users workspaces even though some of them did not connect to VPN for a long time

Incentivized

• Potential threat identification and quarantining is immediate and very reliable.
• Monitoring system updates, statistics, hardware status, and connectivity issues for all systems on the network.
• Installation and registration, either remotely or in person, is a breeze, usually taking about 10-15 minutes, and with step by step confirmations.
• The organizational hierarchy, as well as the abilities listed in the hierarchy are extremely user friendly and easy to use for novices and pros alike.

Incentivized

• Provides high fidelity alerting.
• Allows CSOC analysts to perform forensic triage and alert investigations through containment from a single pane of glass.
• Provides alert telemetry across on-disk and in-memory attacks.
• Supports many additional 'bolt-on' modules to provide additional alert context or capabilities.

Incentivized

• The PC imaging tools are difficult to set up and use
• Device Encryption tools are getting better, but are difficult to manage.
• The policies are powerful, but could be broken up. More help can be provided in what the policy element does within the policy setup

Incentivized

• My biggest flak with McAfee Endpoint Security is that it is quite resource-intensive. It does tend to make the system a little slow. You get security at the expense of your machine's speed.
• Even though the drive encryption makes the system more secure, it takes a lot of time to first enter the very long password, and then for it to decrypt the whole machine. This sometimes clashes with Windows update and causes a lot of complications which leads to boot loops.

Incentivized

The product is stable and accurate in detecting security threats. There are very few or no false positives in detecting security threats or unusual behavior and has very sharp heuristics. The product does the job very well including saving us money in getting 3rd party patch management tools as the business is already using Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager which is Microsoft product specific and the product patches these third party products e.g Adobe Flash Player

Incentivized

I will give Kaspersky a score of 9 out of 10 for scalability, as it allows businesses to easily expand their security infrastructure. This means it won't cost them a lot to add further protection and security. It won't also require them to purchase other hardware and services for their required protection.

So below is my breakdown, Pro's: Centralized Management, Comprehensive Protection and customization. Con's: Initial cost

Incentivized

I've used the on-premise server. I've only experienced one time that we couldn't open the console, and that was a server issue. It seems to be a dependable solution. It's there, and it's stable.

Incentivized

Users don't notice any slowdown with the antivirus running on their systems. There have been issues when the systems have missed a scheduled scan, and it was checked to run at [a] first available time, they will start a full scan at startup. This has caused some lag. Normally there are also some issues with the workstation, but it is something to note.

Incentivized

I give the maximum grade because we have no complaints; we never had any failure, serious error, and serious threat to the company. All of its features work very well. The great advantage of having a product supported by an industry-leading security company is that regularly updated security protocols will protect the system against all emerging threats.

Incentivized

The support is pretty good, and I haven't had any issues with getting the highest quality technical support when there are issues. Tech support representatives that I have dealt with know the product quite well and have solved many issues that I have had with the product in the past. The only issue I have with support is that it can be quite expensive.

Incentivized

Make sure to provide awareness campaigns on changes that will be implemented and WHY the business is doing it and the benefits reaped. Benefits reaped is very important for the justification of why things have to change and emphasizing the importance of security. This will reduce user disgruntlement and total bitterness on use of their workstation or laptop

Incentivized

I've used the cloud version of CarbonBlack and Bitdefender. They both say they automatically scan files as soon as they appear on your computer. The user/administrator is left to trust that the technology works. With Bitdefender, it at least allows an on-demand scan, but it still never reports to the user if the file was clean. Kaspersky automatically scans and notifies the user that it has been scanned AND the results of the scan. In IT we know we can't always trust the technology to perform as designed. I NEED confirmation to feel at ease. Kaspersky makes it easy to run an on-demand scan of a workstation if there is suspicion of an infection. Another thing is that I have not [seen] in Bitdefender, and I know CarbonBlack does not provide inventory information for the administrators like Kasperky. Kaspersky gives detailed information about the systems it scan and lists every software installed. You can even filter and search for specific installations in your network through the Kaspersky Server Center (KSC). It helps know what licenses are used and where.

Incentivized

We only selected McAfee because we are already using ESET NOD32 for the protection of our desktops and laptops. We didn't want to use the same software for our servers so we chose McAfee instead. I personally like ESET Smart Security better than McAfee when deploying it on a desktop or laptop because I think it protects the PC better. When it comes to web protection, policy updates, etc., McAfee is the better choice and that's why we deployed it on our servers.

Incentivized

You can create groups and create different policies for each group. You can customize many parts of the software before it is deployed. You can create different tasks and schedules based on the groups. It is customizable.

Incentivized

• It reduced the incidents of infections and so reduced the efforts needed by the IT department to mitigate problems.
• It made it difficult to manage the security of our growing mobile user base due to infrequent contact with our on-premise management server.

Incentivized

• This tool helped us in delegating the asset safety responsibility to the client level by 80%, leaving 20% for the management console.
• With a decent pricing, the benefits are slightly above expectations. The ROI is good.
• But, considering most of the malware comes from internet, with a good email security appliance and next gen firewall in place, the online security alerts are now redundant. It could be something that can be termed as overkill on the budget.

Incentivized