Bitdefender GravityZone EDR Reviews

We use this solution for the anti-malware. We intend to replace Bitdefender with Windows Defender gradually. Bitdefender is deployed on all our endpoints.

The most valuable features are the anti-malware and firewall policies. The runtime scans and execution have been beneficial to our business.

Windows Defender is becoming a default component of the Windows operating system. The on-premises setup for Bitdefender sometimes faces issues with connectivity. Management of Windows Defender is a bit easier compared to Bitdefender.

They need to increase their capability to scan cloud services.

I have been using this solution for six years.

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

We faced issues in the past with customer support for this solution as we waited a long time for replies to emails. 

I would recommend the cloud version of this solution because it is much more scalable. Bitdefender is a good product but there are other good competitors so it all depends on the use case.

I would rate the on-prem version an eight out of ten. 

I use GravityZone Ultra as an endpoint security solution.

Areas for improvement would be performance and pricing.

This solution is scalable.

GravityZone Ultra is stable.

The setup was easy.

I would recommend GravityZone Ultra to others, and I would rate it seven out of ten.

We use GravityZone Ultra for end-user protection.

We've been working with GravityZone for about two and a half, maybe three years.

GravityZone's scalability is good enough for us. In total, we have thousands of end-users.

My experience with Bitdefender support has been good so far.

I like GravityZone's short implementation time. It takes only a day, at most.

We deploy in-house using our own team.

We pay an annual license. GravityZone is about average in terms of affordability. Other solutions are cheaper than GravityZone. However, I think it's a good value for the price.

I rate GravityZone nine out of 10. 

I used Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra for endpoint security.

The firewall security could be better.

I have been using Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra for approximately three years.

Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra is stable.

I have found Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra to be highly scalable.

We have approximately 10 people using this solution in my organization.

I have not needed to use technical support.

I have previously used Panda Security, and I switched because I did not trust it.

The initial setup of Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra was easy. The full process took two weeks.

I did the implementation of the solution myself.

We have the head of the IT department who does the deployment and maintenance of Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra.

I have not seen a return on investment with this solution.

When I first started using this solution I was paying $80 annually. I did not pay any additional fees. There are other solutions that are cheaper on the market.

I have recently changed from Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra to Check Point Harmony because my IT security partner recommended it.

Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra is a good solution, but it's not the best. The Check Point Harmony solution is cheaper, and the firewall is safer.

I rate Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra a seven out of ten.

We're primarily using the solution for endpoint protection. We use it for security.

There's really not any issue with it, so far.

I like the firewall part of it. 

The advanced direct control on offer is excellent.

The initial setup is very easy.

The solution is stable. 

The product is pretty scalable. 

I've found the pricing of the product to be reasonable.

The only problem we have, and I don't know if maybe it's the package we bought, is that it lacks the parts of data protection and application blacklisting. I don't think we have that option on this package. Apart from that, we've been using it and we've been seeing the reports. We've had no issues so far. We're just missing the blacklisting and data protection features.

I've been using the solution for about two years at this point. It's been a while. 

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and the performance is good. 

We have 35 people in our company that are using the solution currently.

The solution can scale. It scales easily. Initially, we started with 30 users and then when we had new other staff that joined. Easy to scale and add others.

I've not really had any issues, and therefore I've not really spoken with any support in regards to our system.

I've worked with Sophos previously.

We also previously used Symantec, which is the product we had before Bitdefender. 

The setup is not complex. It was simple. We didn't have an issue. It was easily deployed.

That said, I cannot recall exactly how long the deployment took. 

The solution doesn't require any real maintenance. Usually, whenever there are any changes or outages you get notifications for them. I also receive a notification whenever there's maybe a system that's trying to make an attempt to do something different on our network so we can activate the device and protect ourselves.

We have two administrators that can handle any tasks related to the product.

We installed it ourselves. We just bought the license. We did not need a third-party integrator or consultant to assist us. 

Compared to Symantec, which we were using before we switched to Bitdefender, Bitdefender was cheaper. The pricing is reasonable. Everything is included in the price and we do not have any additional costs. 

We're just a customer and an end-user. 

I would recommend the product as it's easy to deploy and it's not as heavy as Symantec. We found that the product was consuming so many processes in our system. This is light, so it's easy to configure. It's easier to deal with and I'd recommend it based on that.

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

The solution provides endpoint protection and very good security, both at the end point and supplier levels. The good thing about the Romanian-based company is that it is not politically affiliated, in contrast to certain other companies and this may be a factor when it comes to the implementation of Bitdefender Gravity Zone, a solution with a global presence. 

The Ultra is a valuable feature. So are the EDR components, which provide endpoint protection for the use of security operation centers, as they relate to whatever may be happening respecting the endpoints.

The solution is easy to use and implement. It only requires one server and this is in contrast with other products that require more, one for management and another for the database. 

While the solution is secure, it could have better integration. 

Also, the support should be faster.

We have been using Bitdefender Gravity Zone Ultra for four years. 

The solution is stable. We have received good feedback from our customers. They are happy with it. For the moment, they are using a less advance model of GravityZone, of which there are several types, including that of Elite, Ultra and Business. They are now requesting the highest level, so that they may also benefit from the features offered with EDR and the Improved Anti-Ransomeware.

The speed of technical support should be addressed. 

The installation is straightforward, and it is support Hypervisors at the moment (VmWare, Hyper-V and Nutanix (HCI) ).

As a supplier, if the prerequisites are ready on the customer's end, it should take no more than a day. 

As a client, it would depend on the number of PCs involved. 

in-house

The solution has both cloud-based and on-premises options.

As our company is not very large, we go with the cloud-based option. But, we propose to our customers the on-premises one as per their request. 

We have three customers who are using the solution at present.

A systems administrator and engineer handle the deployment and maintenance. 

I would recommend this solution to others who are considering its implementation. 

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.