Bitdefender GravityZone EDR Reviews

The solution suits the needs of our business model. 

The URL filtering features should be addressed. 

The installation capabilities should be improved, especially when new updates come out. Sometimes, installation requires one to get to the level of having to install the agents. The installation is not straightforward and should be easier to do. 

We have been using Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra for over a year. 

We find the rollout to be stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

As we keep on expanding and opening new businesses, we have definite plans to increase the usage within the coming year. 

We have had no issues with the support and consider it to be good, even when it comes to accredited resellers.

We have made use of technical support and I believe this is something one wishes to experience as time goes by. 

The installation capabilities should be improved, especially when new updates come out. Sometimes, installation requires one to get to the level of having to install the agents. The installation is not straightforward and should be easier to do.

The process lasted three or four minutes. 

The installation can be done on one's own or with the help of a technical team. We have a team that handles this.

We did this at the group level and manage different entities. There are so many factors that are involved in the installation. We must account for the number of endpoint devices that we're working with, their geographical coverage, the time involved, and the network experience website. In cases where we face obstacles on the network, the downloading of the agents prior to the commencement of the installation is quite time consuming. 

Each endpoint device we purchased came with its own license. 

Our subscription is yearly. 

We did evaluate other options and found that they provide good antivirus solutions. However, we felt the added functionality of Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra to suit our business model well. Our business model does not allow us to invest in other, unified, solutions when it comes to other aspects of security. This is because of how the business model is and how the other branches are set up. 

I am satisfied with the overall updates that are introduced and they continue to do so on their central panel, especially on the reporting side. My hope is that they continue with this trend. 

The solution is cloud-based. 

If I'm doing a cumulative account of all the business entities within our group, I would say that there are 5,000 people making use of the solution. 

I consider Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra to be one of the best integrator solutions. We have never faced challenges when it comes to support. We are talking about a very good solution which works for both small and large enterprises. This is an antivirus solution which truly invested in centralized management, something which allows one to centrally manage his policies and do monitoring irrespective of where the endpoint devices are located. 

We have been interacting with different resellers in disparate entities, something which is influenced by the time one buys and the geographical location and which is done to avoid tax issues both here and there. I believe this is something we will look to consolidate in the near future. 

I rate Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra as a nine out of ten. 

One feature I found valuable was controlling from the cloud. It was better for me that GravityZone could be controlled from the cloud. 

We are having trouble on the server side. But also on the endpoint side. For example, specifically on my computer, I couldn't run it, so I had to remove the program. I'm not using endpoint security for now, especially not Bitdefenders right now.

We find it's making the machines run slow. We're also having problems in the service groups. When we run GravityZone it suddenly goes very slowly. Some processes are bad and we can't use some features, so we had to uninstall some products from the service of some endpoint devices. We are using about 2000 endpoints and 2000 servers.

They seem to have problems installing for the client. We can't seem to find support when we do an install. Uninstalling it is a problem as well. Recently, I tried to uninstall from my computer and when I tried to deploy it, it was hard for me to uninstall it. I have found some tools, but it was really hard to remove it with them too. 

It must be optimized in my opinion. Because it makes the machine very slow. In the past, we were using ESET NOD32. It was very good, it was not making the machine slow. It was normal. The machine was fast when I'm used ESET, but when I started using Bitdefender it made my computer very slow. It's not just me. My colleague is complaining that the machines are becoming very slow after using Bitdefender.

They should make uninstalling easier and improve the service side, but also make it removable on demand locally. It needs to be removable from the local service, not the cloud.

From what I understand, we were going to program from the cloud, and have one policy from the cloud. Some policies would be okay. But my computer was not visible in the cloud. Normally it's good because if we can move it onto the cloud, it would make it easy. With the use of the cloud, we can move many computers at the same time. At the time we had more than 2000 devices using it. But I couldn't move my computer. It was bad for me.

We had issues with technical support. They kept saying that they were helping, but in reality, on the ground, we had problems. From the server side, we had issues. We had so many servers, but we weren't using most of them. We had a license, but we weren't using it.

Previously we just used ESET.

The initial setup was complex, plus the IT company was not using one individual for one program for one company. They are installing for other companies also. There are so many companies, they're not installing the quality program for another person, or for other companies.

It's different, ESET.  You must learn it very well. Because every time you're downloading ESET, you're downloading a different ESET. Its operation is not the best at supporting people with IT issues. The workload is much more than before. We must do the same job with fewer people. It's so much work. But it's harder than ESET.

We looked at Kapersky and a few more. Kapersky was better than this product. I knew the Bitdefender engine was used by so many devices and the engine was known very well. But as an antivirus program, Kapersky and ESET were better than this solution. But their price for the company was too much. In my opinion, Kapersky's server side is better.

If you move from the cloud and can find good support in your country, it's advisable. But otherwise, the next time, I think I'd not choose Bitdefender GravityZone. I would rate the solution a 6 or 6.5 out of 10. Because of the issues we experienced on the server-side.

I like the style of it. It's great because I have access to it from anywhere. 

The solution can be improved by being able to pull up the localization key map of the user. Also, to be more international, not just American compliant.

I never had any issues, never had any bugs, it was very stable. I liked it very much.

I was in a daily rush and was put in touch with people who were selling the solution, so I was not left with a good impression.

I do wish the two solutions I picked up had the same way of working, but that's not the case. So, it's a compromise. I really like it; I really had a good time with the professional who pushed Bitdefender with me. He had a good experience. I don't know if I had the strength to set up everything. I needed to pre-offer the application, and I've tried Cryptids, pre-boot encryption on the drive, and BitCourse, which is Bitdefender's.

If you want to have a pre-boot, the password has to be set up using a keyed map, which is crazy, because nobody uses keyed maps. That's just a corporate failure and it's not acceptable when you see how much it costs.

The panels have also been able to bypass the security shell.

Unfortunately, the solution wasn't designed to be used in France. So I think it should be restricted to the American market.

For those setting up the solution, I would say get used to using core tying cable. 

It's much easier to deploy with the network, there's much more ease. I claim can do that for you, the HTTP management. But the way it was designed, it's not just designed for us.

Using BitDoctor for encryption isn't smart, because we're using Windows 7 Pro, and we can't use Bitcalc elements on Windows 7 Pro because it has to be committed Enterprise. There's no way we're going to buy it from SR Live Central just to get the disk encryption. And this is the whole point: you might as well get your own encryption engine and then just use that solution. Because with BitDoctor, you can encrypt the disk if you do a run dump, and then in the run dump you get the TPA chip and you can decrypt the disk. 

If I was an American, I'd give the solution an 8 out of 10. As a European, I rate the solution 6 out of 10.

When we are trying to eliminate the virus from the endpoint, and we are making some policies to block a USB port, we use this solution. We can enable an anti-phishing policy on it. If someone reaches a website that is not good, we directly get a notification. 

We can see if there are patches or if the applications are good or not.

The best thing I have found is that we have a centralized dashboard. 

The feature which I like is the anti-phishing feature. We get notified directly if someone might click on a phishing link.

The initial setup is easy.

It is easily integrated with our controller. However, it's not directly integrated with it. When we took our system endpoints in our anti-directory, we did not see them in our different antivirus directory. Once we install the agent in it, it'll show that. It would be good if they directly integrate with our anti-directory, so whenever the endpoints come into our domain, we can directly install the agent through the web portal into the endpoint.

If we could directly push the agent to the script, it'll be very good. We don't have to handle it manually.

A new user might have issues with the initial setup. It's easier to handle if a person is knowledgeable.

It would be ideal if they offered application patches.

I've used the solution for four to five years. 

Every person in the company uses the solution right now. There are at least 250 people on the solution. It's used on both Windows and Mac OS.

I've never personally contacted technical support.

The setup all depends on the user's knowledge. If a user is new, it'll be difficult. If they're used to it, it'll be easier. In my case, I have had some practice with it, so it will not be difficult for me. I would rate the seven out of ten in terms of ease of setup.

It doesn't take too much time to install the product.

We handled the initial setup ourselves in-house. We directly take the agent and install it on the portal directly. After that, the agent does all the work.

We're customers and end-users. 

We are using the normal version, not plus.

While anyone can use the solution, users should first go with their use cases. You have to see if the software is applicable to your environment or not. You have to know how you are going to protect your endpoints from the outside. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's good for protection and has good features. 

The solution provides security, including endpoint and network security. 

The solution is scalable, stable, robust and very flexible and intuitive. It's probably one of the top five, best security solutions on the market at the moment.

When one designs for the cloud, the Windows client, no actual package is provided. This is an issue which should be addressed. The package must be downloaded and, when this is accomplished, it does an additional download. On certain older computers this can take  a long while. 

This contrasts with the Mac version, which is very quick. There is a need to work on the deployment, when it comes to deploying to Windows machines with regards to downloading the size of the package.

I suppose that the deployment could be faster, although this is not really a criticism, as this involves the design. There is always a difference in Windows and Mac architecture, so I would not count this as a complaint. It would be nice if the Windows deployment could be improved, although this does not result in any major difficulties. 

We have been using Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra for a year or two. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I have contacted technical support on a couple of occasions. While it takes a bit of time to receive a response, this can only be attributed to the difference in time zones. When they do respond, I find them to be very good and helpful. 

While the solution is easy to install, when one designs for the cloud, the Windows client, no actual package is provided. This must be downloaded and, when complete, an additional download is required. On certain older computers this can take a long time. 

I do everything on my own. I am a managed service provider. Although there are certain people who work with me, I essentially manage the security side of things independently. 

As I am on a different model, my clients pay me on a monthly basis.

The reason I gave the solution a nine out of ten is because SentinelOne is slightly better, although I do not make use of it. 

SentinelOne requires less hands-on involvement than Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra. One can essentially get it up and running without the need to do very much. While Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra meets 99 percent of this criteria, the remaining one percent requires a bit of manual intervention. This is not to say that the solution could be easier to use. This is not a criticism, as we are talking about different products. I have been using Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra and have no intention of leaving it. 

We are using the solution with nearly 100 endpoints. 

The solution is cloud-based.

I would absolutely recommend it to others. 

I rate Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra as a nine out of ten. 

The primary use of the solution is to obtain or to control all clients in only one place.

For example, with this, I can add patch management. For me, it's a good way to update the clients without, for example, a server from my company. I can manage the patch management for my clients from one simple central console.

The advantage of the solution is that it has a console on the cloud and you can update the clients. You don't need to put it on the server on your company or on-premise. You can manage the clients through the console on the cloud and you can send policies and updates and other things without the need to put a client into your own network.

Bitdefender has a EDR solution in the client. It offers protection for the exchange and can check services. It has a patch management feature, which is quite useful for us. 

We're able to implement a sandbox solution, to try to detect any malware on devices. It helps keep us safe.

So far, the solution has been problem-free. We have never had to reach out to technical support to troubleshoot as it just seems to work very well.

The reporting is much too simple. It should be more in-depth and offer more details and more information. They could really build out the reporting aspect of the product overall. We need more information, for example, about traffic and logs. It would be much more helpful if we had a bit more visibility.

We've never had to reach out to technical support. That's due to the fact that we haven't run into any issues at all. It's been very easy to use without any problems that would require an intervention.

We're resellers of this solution. We offer it to our clients.

In general, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been pretty happy overall with how it has been working for us. We have no complaints.

The way I have it configured for most of my clients is that I go through and I do an analysis of where they need to go from basically giving them absolutely no access. I literally block everything. Then I start opening up their modules for content control. It's for opening up and giving specific users specific access that they need on the internet. I try to go with the zero access approach. That's my main approach. And that's how I usually use it. Obviously I have a couple of clients that wanted everything open and then they wanted us to go backward and to leave everything open and start closing things once in a while if they saw a problem.

The most valuable feature for me is the ability to whitelist, blacklist, and be very granular as to what I blocked, what apps I blocked, and what websites I block. I think that's probably the most valuable feature.

The tech engineers don't complain about much. It's solid. My biggest thing is that I want to have more than one option for my clients.

The software itself is solid. It would be better if it was more of a real-time solution, like SentinelOne. The one thing that holds me back on the SentinelOne side is that I can blacklist websites and stuff like that, but it's not as granular as Bitdefender. With Bitdefender, I feel like I have more control over what I can whitelist and blacklist.

Bitdefender is not designed to work in real-time. It's a signature-based platform, it's going to work signature-based in that there are times that it has to get updates. For example, if I'm managing a hundred machines with Bitdefender and the staff is having internet issues or something, and Bitdefender does an update within a week, not all the machines are going to be up to date at the same time. I have it configured to run every day at a certain time but unfortunately, a lot of the people that use it have really bad internet and I can't run it during work hours, I have to run it after hours and they shut their computers off. The first thing Bitdefender does is it goes and looks for signatures in the morning and then it runs the updates at night and then it runs scans at night as well. Sometimes it can go three, four, five days without any update. I've had some that go up to 27. The longest I've had was 32 days and it didn't even run one scan.

I have a client in the Philippines and right now, because of COVID, they're all over the Philippines and in the provinces where they have a really bad internet connection, it's a struggle. I have to schedule with them. The internet is so bad that I have six people using phone data to work because internet companies don't even go that far out for them to have a stable internet connection.

In those cases, I'm struggling a little bit with Bitdefender. With a regular office set up, it runs like clockwork. But with this new normal that we have right now, it's been a little bit complicated. That's why I'm looking to add Cylance. I have a demo with them soon.

I have been using Bitdefender for three years. 

Right now I have about 150 licenses. I use Bitdefender as my go-to. Bitdefender is the default for any new client that signs up.

I've never needed to use technical support. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. When I deployed, I deployed it through SolarWind software. It took minutes. I just uploaded the installer and I pushed it through the machines. It went through and it did the clean up of the default AVs that come when they buy the machines and it cleaned most of those up. There were a few McAfees and a couple of Nortons that we had to go in and manually use the McAfee or the Norton removal tool to get rid of those before the Bitdefender would install. But that was a very small percentage. It cleaned up most of them and it was running with no problem.

If we're in a regular office scenario, it's pretty painless.

My advice would be to do it. For the most part, I've been happy. I would definitely recommend it.

I don't know if the software has the infrastructure for it, but in the next release, I would like for them to add some AI and some more predictive capabilities. It'll run more on a real-time basis instead of near real-time. I think that would work for me. I think it would be great.

I would rate Bitdefender a nine out of ten. 

I use Bitdefender GravityZone EDR in my company to see if something abnormal is happening on PCs. When a hacker or anyone else is trying to do something on a PC or if they jump from one PC to another area in the IT infrastructure, and the antivirus or the endpoint protection tools cannot detect such activities, then EDR tools can be useful in such scenarios.

When there is a brute force attack or lateral movements within the network, EDR tools can detect it. EDR is very helpful for security operations in SOC. If anything abnormal is happening on a network or in the PC itself, then EDR becomes useful for protection.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is easy to use and simple, meaning it's not much complicated. The customer is able to read the results and values easily provided by the solution compared to the products from other vendors. Whatever information I am sharing is based on our company's customer feedback.

The features in Bitdefender GravityZone EDR are what our company's customers are happy with and actually want. I don't see my company's customers requesting more from Bitdefender GravityZone EDR since they get what they want from the product.

Bitdefender GravityZone EDR doesn't have an official office in Saudi Arabia, which is important if the vendor wants to gain or be closer to their customers. Bitdefender GravityZone EDR needs to have a legal team with technical support, a sales manager to cover the region, a pre-sales representative, a technical account manager, a channel manager, and a good team in Saudi Arabia.

I have been using Bitdefender GravityZone EDR for four years. My company has a partnership with Bitdefender GravityZone EDR.

I haven't heard of much downtime when it comes to the product.

It is a scalable solution.

My company's clients prefer Bitdefender GravityZone EDR, consisting of mall, medium, and enterprise-sized businesses.

The technical support of Bitdefender GravityZone EDR is the same as Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra since both products belong to the same vendor.

My company did work with an EDR solution provided by a vendor named CyberArk, and we even did the proof of concept for one of our customers with the same product, but they were not happy with it. As some of the requirements were too much to handle for Cybereason, my company decided to switch to Bitdefender GravityZone EDR. Cybereason's user interface is very well designed. According to my customers, Cybereason's user interface is way too well designed, but it's over the top, making it not so easy to use. My customer found Bitdefender GravityZone EDR easy to use, simple, and easy to learn, especially for junior-level employees.

The product's initial setup phase was easy.

The product's installation deployment phase

The solution is deployed on the cloud and on an on-premises model.

The solution can be deployed in 15 to 20 minutes for small and medium-sized businesses, while it may take a bit more time for enterprise-sized companies.

Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra is a product that requires one license, and people who prefer Bitdefender GravityZone EDR are those who want a bit different solution. The deployment part of Bitdefender GravityZone EDR is the same as Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra.

I see a general improvement in the security in my organization from the use of Bitdefender GravityZone EDR.

I rate the product's price a four on a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high.

Bitdefender GravityZone EDR is a competitively priced product.

The user or the admin of Bitdefender GravityZone EDR should always be in touch with the technologies because you don't know when some incidents occur, and you may fail to recognize them. With Bitdefender GravityZone EDR, you have to always keep a watch over it as it is an EDR solution through the security operations center since EDR tools are more for detection than prevention.

Based on the availability of the product in my region, I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.