Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security Reviews

We're using Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security for protection of endpoints.

We appreciate the application control and the AI capability of the Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security.

We work with the HyperDetect feature.

We've enabled the application control, the network defense, and the web protection in Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security, which has really helped us in terms of traffic. Initially, before Bitdefender, our firewall used to be clogged with a lot of traffic, requiring reboots once every week. Since implementing Bitdefender, the traffic to the firewall has significantly reduced, and network congestion has been resolved.

Prior to Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security, we experienced a ransomware attack. Since installation, we haven't had another attack of similar nature. Through Bitdefender, we can block unnecessary applications, narrowing down the application usage to essential ones beneficial to the organization. In terms of security posture, we are better positioned than we were before implementing Bitdefender.

We find Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security easy to manage and monitor.

The HyperDetect feature has been highly effective in identifying stealth attacks for us.

It operates in real-time, and we've enabled it to detect malicious activities in our network and at the endpoint level, performing quite effectively.

The centralized console has benefited our security management.

We are not currently using the automated patching or patch management.

The security analytics feature, which could help us stay compliant with industry standards, hasn't been enabled yet.

Currently running on-premise, we are considering moving to the cloud-based Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security because it offers more features compared to the on-premises version. We've experienced multiple failures during appliance upgrades, sometimes requiring us to resort to backup.

Mobile and cloud features are currently missing in Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security. Operating from the primary site, we face challenges with the on-premises version when working from the DR site, which is why we want to move to the cloud for continuous protection during site failovers.

We have been working with Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security for over three years now.

The initial setup when implementing Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security in our environment was straightforward. A local partner installed it for us and provided training, making the process smooth. The only challenges involved understanding how the exclusions are done and managing policies.

In terms of stability, we haven't experienced any crashes, downtimes, or performance issues. It runs efficiently on endpoints, and users rarely complain about system load, unlike our previous solution where scanning would render computers unusable until completion.

We find Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security to be highly scalable.

I have engaged the Bitdefender technical support team twice when we encountered upgrade and technical issues, and they provided helpful guidance. We also have a local support team that we can call when needed, though we rarely require their assistance. They conduct annual health checks at no cost, making the experience smooth.

Before implementing Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security, we experienced a ransomware attack. The solution has provided advantages in preventing similar attacks, reducing network congestion, and providing visibility into user applications.

The initial setup was straightforward, with a local partner handling the installation and training process.

We have experienced significant return on investment and measurable benefits with Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security.

Maintaining Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security has been smooth. We receive regular notifications about upgrades, and the process has been successful without issues.

Before choosing Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security, we evaluated other market options and selected it because of its lightweight nature. Running on a Linux platform, we found it suitable, and it was highly ranked at the time.

We compared Bitdefender's pricing with Fortinet and Cisco solutions and found it to be more reasonable than both alternatives.

I can tell other users considering Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security that if they're having issues with visibility on end-user application usage, this solution is extremely helpful. They can narrow down necessary applications in their environment, free up the network, and eliminate unnecessary applications to get business value.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this solution a nine.

It is good to use for servers and endpoints. Because of the SME segment, they are not very keen to get into the enterprise segment. Hypervisors and virtual servers are there, but in the SME segment, there's not much focus on hypervisors. They prefer to have individual servers. That is working out fine so far.

Recently, it's not only Bitdefender, but our network design has also changed. We have revamped the network design into a multi-segment network design inspired by the X side. Servers, workstations, and NAS storage are in separate segments. We put stringent policies in place only to allow specific ports to open toward the servers. This has automatically reduced attacks. 

Before, most default ports were used, which created problems. Even from outside, when opening an RDP connection through the Internet, even on a customized port, the process was getting attacked. But once the VPN was implemented, things changed a lot. In recent years, we haven't found many attacks. But before that, there were many incidents I could elaborate on. It's getting more and more stabilized.

We are also educating our clients. We give training, like knowledge base, security awareness training. That is giving a bigger output. People are becoming much more educated. They're not clicking unnecessary links. They are aware and will send us a message if they have a doubt about opening a file or email. 

Another thing that is becoming advantageous is implementing a mail security solution in front of the mail servers. That is cutting edge because whatever firewall or antivirus software you have, they are not able to scan the emails. It already comes to the email. Unless it blocks the threat, it can only tag it. But if the user clicks on a link or attachment, it is going to infect the computer. It is inside your computer, and then you're trying to. Therefore, it, most of the time, stops the antivirus first, and then it takes action. That means you are already infected, and you are trying to solve the issue. But when we implemented mail security, even without a firewall, if you have mail security, with my industry experience, I saw that users need mail security in the first place and then go for the firewall in the second place. Because once you clear up the mail security, the majority of attacks are blocked. Majority threat comes from the mail. 

The major threat is coming; almost without exaggeration, 70% of attacks are coming through the mail. Whether it is ransomware or clicking on a link. But once you put in mail security and customize it properly, that stops everything. It is stopping the links, and then you have quarantine. The admin can check and release the emails. 

Another thing most companies do is allow the quarantine message to be seen by the end user. Then, he or she doesn't know if it is a good or bad email. It is better to have somebody with experience analyze the emails and then release them to the end user. In the last few years, we have found that viruses and malware have been reduced. This is the major difference.

The important factor is that after implementing Bitdefender, we haven't found any attacks. It has a vaccine for the RDP protocol, which is specific to this. We do some customization, but it does not lack any protection. 

Compared to older versions, we have not found any degradation in performance in the newer versions from the last three to five years, whether for graphical or normal users. They're not complaining that we are facing problems like memory issues. 

Bitdefender is also customizable and granular, but once you install it, it keeps running. The admin gets the information about which computer has been infected and can take action accordingly.

On a regular basis, Bitdefender's AI capability is okay. But you cannot leave some decisions to AI. You must have control. You have to look at what you're filtering, as it can be a false positive. But on a regular basis, AI can be helpful.

The price of the bandwidth here is very expensive compared to European countries.

One of the issues about Bitdefender GravityZone is pricing and bandwidth.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. It is very stable.

Scalability is good because if the client wants to add a module, it's easy. Just call the distributor, and we add it to the console, configure the policies, and push it to the end user. When they log in, it's already there. Scalability-wise, it is pretty useful.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. There is some room for improvement.

We don't have many customers in the enterprise segment. We have only ten clients who are using it. Our area of specialization is the SME segment, mainly up to 150 users. We concentrate on that segment because it is still untapped.  

We are downsizing enterprise solutions into the SME segment, giving them a turnkey solution for servers and everything. We have been doing this for many years and are doing well in that segment.

So far, we are very good. Our distributor is very cooperative, and we have been working with them for quite a long time. We are not facing any problems, and they support us immediately.

Positive

We work with both on-cloud and on-premises solutions. If the recommendation is for on-premises, then we work with that. But in the last few years, everything is moving to the cloud.

We do not prefer AWS cloud. We are in the SME segment, and the price does not match. The pricing that AWS is asking for is high compared to the hardware pricing, which has come down a lot. For example, a high-end server with GPU memory, a one-terabyte hard disk RAID 1, an Enterprise 10 server, or something like that with an eight-core CPU costs around $6,000. With $6,000, you can get a very high-end server.

Like, even for a dual processor, you can get one with dual power supply. There's some sort of redundancy coming in. Again, the main problem we are facing is because of the restricted upload bandwidth compared to your European countries, the US, and so on. For example, if you have a 100 Mbps connection, we get only 10 Mbps upload speed. That is where we are facing the real problem with backing up. It can take a long time. When they want to restore, it takes double the time.

In practicality, it is becoming an issue. But nowadays, for protection, we use hybrid network connections because of ransomware attacks and such threats from cloud services. So, we do more of a hybrid cloud type. So, the local backups are faster. We now have storage with multiple firewalls, and we take the working data, let's say, the last two years' files, into the cloud, not the backup of the system or anything like that. Up to 10 users, we have not found that particular problem. But when it comes to more than 15 users, and if those users are heavy users, then the bandwidth becomes an issue. The price of the bandwidth here is very expensive compared to European countries.

One of the issues about Bitdefender GravityZone is pricing and bandwidth.

Bandwidth is one thing we are not able to manage. But otherwise, if it is a hybrid solution, it is working fine, and we are able to manage it. It looks okay.

Bitdefender integratation with the existing infrastructure is good. We didn't face any issues with integration.

We have deployed it for many clients, and all of them are running fine without any issues. They haven't complained. But sometimes, especially on AutoCAD and similar software, we put a power user password and exclude that specific program from scanning. But it's working fine so far. I haven't found much of an issue. And again, we are not doing only antivirus. We mostly focus on integration, connectivity, and the app solution. Antivirus is a small part of that.

For the initial setup, we need more employees, but for maintenance, since it's a stable solution, we don't need as many. On the technical side, we need two to three people.

It is very competitively priced if you compare it to others and the functionality it gives you. It's almost neck and neck with Sophos, Symantec, Trend Micro, Kaspersky, and Node32. If you look at the same level, maybe a few dollars here and there, plus and minus. But almost all of them are the same. A little bit of difference comes when it comes to EDR, Hyper Detect, malware protection, ransomware protection, and all these things. When we compare them like that, you'll find they are almost the same. But if we take this thing, or if we're not taking that one (customize the package), then the prices vary. But for me, Bitdefender is okay

The pricing is okay as it  depends on what we offer to the client. For on-premises, we are protecting the server. On the workstation side, we are not pushing too much, like EDR, because that may slow down everything. 

But again, it has to be customized. For example, you're running an SQL server. It can be a false positive because the SQL server is always accessing the hard disk, and it may be treated as a malware infection. Therefore, we have to follow the best practices.

The pricing stays competitive with the competition. It's not cheap, not very expensive; it's mid-range. It's okay.

It's modular-based pricing. For example, if you are purchasing antivirus, malware protection, and hyper-detect, you will be charged for those. If you don't want EDR, you won't be charged for it. If you're buying a hundred user licenses and only need EDR for ten devices, you pay for ten devices with antivirus, hyper-detect, and EDR. That means you will be paying extra for those ten devices. If the end user doesn't want EDR, you don't have to pay for it.

So, it has very flexible licensing costs, and it's modular-based.

I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten, with ten being expensive and one being cheap. 

The solution we provide includes maintenance for your customers. We have two models. One model is for direct end-users, where we work as consultants. The other model is for other IT companies who don't have this expertise. We charge for our services and provide consultancy. If they want us to implement it, we charge for our hours, and the remaining work is theirs. We work as a consultant for the IT companies.

I check everything regularly, keep on testing. I started working with Sophos, then Symantec, McAfee. I've worked with most of the main vendors. We keep evaluating them. Now there is a new one, Webroot, that is coming up, but it's still in the testing phase. We keep testing the product lines.

Another model we are pushing is having two different levels of antiviruses on a network. So we have a different set for servers and another one for workstations. Another interesting product is Emsisoft. It's a malware and ransomware prevention software that complements Bitdefender. It combines well with any antivirus software. It's very stable. If you run a script, it quarantines it and informs the administrator, who must approve it to run. We are deploying this in combination with Bitdefender on servers.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

I am using Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security for endpoints. The solution is implemented for our customers.

The best feature of Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security is that it is lightweight. It does not pull down anything and functions without any issues. Recently, they shifted that particular feature which increased unnecessary loads. Previously, we used to set two passwords, but otherwise, it is a good product.

The risk analytics capability is excellent because the central console is very good. It provides clear information about various aspects.

The GravityZone integration capabilities have been useful, and the deployment process is satisfactory.

I have been working with Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security for quite a long time, but recently, I do not appreciate their changes, especially on the technical side. They moved some portions to remote GUI-based interfaces.

The Command Line Interface (CLI) is not improving. Even experienced personnel are finding it difficult. There is a power user function where you can stop it temporarily for installing applications. Previously, we had the option to click on the power user button and enter the password to allow stopping that particular function. Now, we have to do it via CLI, which even technical personnel struggle to understand.

Currently, everything is working fine except for the technical aspects we can control. If they can revert to the old system, that would be much better.

When we raise this issue with Bitdefender, they cite security reasons for the change. However, while Cisco is moving away from CLI to GUI, Bitdefender is moving backward. Normal users cannot handle these CLI operations effectively.

The GravityZone integration capabilities have been useful for deployment. Previously, it was very smooth, but recently, due to migration from Windows 10 to Windows 11, we are facing installation problems on some systems. We have to address new issues that keep appearing from the Microsoft side.

Regarding integration, we are not encountering any problems.

Regarding operational costs, once we renew it, we are not encountering any significant issues. It continues to operate without problems.

Their technical support is helpful. I would rate them an 8 out of 10.

I am planning to work with two other products in our pipeline: Webroot and ESET Antivirus. We will evaluate how they perform and make decisions accordingly.

We are implementing the basic portion of Bitdefender products rather than the higher-level features.

Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security utilizes AI, but they are not extensively focusing on it.

As integrators, we rate Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security a 7 out of 10 due to technical issues.

We primarily bought Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security for endpoint protection. We needed an endpoint protection solution that covered everything we required, and the pricing was also a favorable factor in our decision.

The centralized GravityZone console is straightforward to use. You can see every machine that is in your environment and observe exactly what is happening, if there is any risk, or if there is any threat that you need to attend to. The dashboard is quite comprehensive and allows you to have an overview of the security posture of your environment.

Because we bought Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security via Rectron as a distributor, they need to upskill their distributors. When we were deploying, the Rectron people did not know much, and we had to complete the deployment on our own. Our engineer was able to get it right because he is certified on network security, but we did not receive much help from Rectron itself.

It took us more than two weeks to deploy Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security because we could not get the answers from the distributor. Initially, before we purchased it, the distributor acted as if they knew this product very well, but after we bought it and were supposed to deploy it, they were struggling, so we ended up getting it right ourselves.

We have been using Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security for three years.

We used Bitdefender previously, but then the client ended up using it internally for endpoint protection, and I think those licenses are expiring anyway.

Two engineers were involved in the deployment on our end with 100 licenses.

At this point in time, I am using Bitdefender, specifically GravityZone.

The fact that it is almost plug and play means the policies I have to define are not very complicated. Compared to something like McAfee Endpoint Security, EPO, I find Bitdefender much easier to deploy. 

It is great for admins who do not know much about endpoint security, as they can find Bitdefender very easy to deploy. The dashboard is really intuitive, providing a quick snapshot of the current environment, and the notifications are robust. 

I had an issue where notifications took longer to appear, but with some tweaking, I managed to resolve it. Now, notifications appear quickly. It has two-factor authentication, and it is web-based. 

In terms of threat detection, I would give it a ten out of ten since Bitdefender manages to catch threats that other products miss. It has a feature with ransomware protection that can undo changes made by malware. It is really next level.

At this point in time, the download footprint is a bit big. What I mean is the initial file I download to deploy on end-user devices is about six hundred to seven hundred megabytes, and it should be scaled down to an agent size of maybe less than one hundred megabytes, max. If I do not have the file at hand, downloading it can be time-consuming, especially with a slow Internet. Regarding the client installation, if I do not know how to tweak it, it is a hassle to pause security unless I have enabled an option within the policy setting. Compared to other products where a toggle switch is available by default, it would help if this process was easier. I learned this the hard way. The download size and ease of use for clients are areas where I can fault them, but overall, I am pretty okay with the offer.

I have been familiar with it for three years.

I am satisfied because the only time I needed tech support was during the initial setup. We did some onboarding, and the local support team was very informed. After that, I have never needed additional support, which shows how easy and friendly Bitdefender is.

Neutral

Depending on my installation file, it takes a maximum of five minutes. If I already have the file with me, all I need to do is configure one key, install it, and that is it. Easy.

The overall product rating is nine out of ten.

We are not collecting reviews for this product.

From my reseller perspective, the best features of Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security that stand out are the sandboxing and reporting capabilities.

The beneficial aspects include comprehensive sandboxing functionality and detailed reporting features.

The phishing feature report showed zero results, and the patch management component is one of the two main issues that need improvement.

The technical support from Bitdefender could be enhanced, with current satisfaction levels at seven to eight out of ten.

I have been working with the Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security Premium product for approximately four years as a reseller.

The installation and deployment of the products are very simple to execute.

Regarding stability, I have not faced any glitches or latency problems other than the one previously mentioned by Mr. Rashid Sheikh.

My experience shows that it is a scalable solution that can be upgraded quickly.

Support currently rates between seven to eight out of ten.

Positive

We are using this solution and evaluate it every three years. Our next evaluation will be conducted next year.

The installation and deployment of the products are very simple to execute.

While I cannot measure the time-based returns, money-wise it has provided approximately a 35% advantage when comparing these features with competitors.

Regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing, it is affordable. Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security helps clients save money on their security investments.

We considered Kaspersky, McAfee, and Norton as alternatives. The main differences between these competitors are in pricing and features. I have created a comparison sheet based on my own research that details these differences.

EaseMyAMC is associated with Sophos and GravityZone Enterprise Security.

I am dealing with Sophos UTM XG firewall, and my clients maintain everything on-premise rather than using AWS Cloud.

We are not currently dealing with XDR.

Bitdefender was ranked second globally in recent analyses, though current rankings may have changed.

The patch management component and its integration capabilities are notable features of the solution.

Based on my experience, I rate Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security a nine out of ten.

It's a good tool. It's a good tool for overall security. And it's also catching up quickly. Recent updates are putting it on par with CrowdStrike. They're almost reaching an extreme level of security in terms of endpoints.

I like its unified interface, which also helps you scan Outlook email, for example. Multiple products can be standardized across endpoints or the EDR solution, and the integrations with SIEMs.

My main concern is that it's a bit heavy for some devices. Like Kaspersky or McAfee, it uses more RAM or memory. Similar to that, it causes issues for users and their own resources, similar to that. 

If you deploy on old legacy devices with only 1GB of RAM, then it could be a problem. Recent versions shouldn't be a problem with at least 16GB of RAM.

Bitdefender should have its own app security built in. After integrating SIEM solutions and log collecting, they could have app security built on top of that. 

For each application, especially when dealing with financial data, if there was an option for data breach control, that would be fantastic. Because nowadays, people are using the internet from home, and we don't know what network they're connecting to. 

For situations where the network security is questionable, having a security control built into the antivirus would be essential. It's a common requirement nowadays.

I have experience with this solution.

It has been a stable product. The product offers ease of management. Perfect. It's like, if someone isn't technical enough, even at the start of their career, they can understand this product well within 30 days and do well with it.

It's more of a one-time deployment and use kind of scenario. So, it has been scalable for our use case.

The customer service and support have been great. We haven't encountered any major ransomware attacks or deep security issues in the year and a half we've used it. So, while we haven't had to test their support in extreme situations, they've been helpful with what we've needed.

The only downside I've seen is the lack of active email communication. They update tickets, but you sometimes don't get notifications, which could be in a backdrop.

Positive

We are MSPs for many endpoint solutions. We primarily use CrowdStrike, Carbonite Endpoint, and Microsoft, but we deploy Bitdefender for customers.

Like Sophos, with its endpoint security and firewall integration, Bitdefender also offers a unified interface. It combines email security and other products, allowing you to scan emails and system files, plus manage removable devices, which is great.

Packaging and deploying it are easy. But ultimately, when deploying for enterprises, they should have legitimate deployment tools. Your users should have admin rights so you can share a link, and they can download and deploy it. 

It's similar to most antivirus solutions.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We deploy it for various client sizes, like 300, 500, or 1000 seats. Many people are buying it, though. We see about four to five deployments every month. So maybe the pricing is good for them.

I'm relying on it to actively monitor network traffic and ensure it stays resilient against potential attacks. It provides comprehensive details on any attempted breaches, which is a key aspect for me.

The enterprise-grade security it offers is impressive. It's user-friendly and doesn't involve any unnecessary hassle during installation. What sets it apart is that it doesn't hog my server resources or impact the performance of any of my PCs. The quality of security it provides, covering antivirus, ADR, and network traffic, has been exceptional. The patch management feature is incredibly impressive, offering seamless network recovery. I installed it on a single server and seamlessly integrated it into my current network. The domain integrator functionality is particularly noteworthy, allowing me to leverage my existing network infrastructure. The comprehensive overview it provides of my network is truly valuable.

My only challenge lies in dealing with binary issues. Sometimes, when I attempt to reconfigure my servers to incorporate specific modules, the process becomes overly intricate. It gets frustrating when the system simply notifies me that the task has failed. The coordination between version one and version seven is less than optimal. The firewall capabilities could benefit from an upgrade since it lacks a high level of granularity and control.

I have been using it for four years.

Once installed, it consistently operates without any issues. Overall, it performs well, earning it a solid rating of nine out of ten.

While I haven't tested it on MacOS or NSR Virtual System, the scalability has been impressive. There's a comprehensive guide for every aspect, and overall, I'm satisfied with the scalability it offers. In my current workplace, we have a total of one hundred twenty workstations and four servers. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The technical support is quite impressive. They excel in self-defense and hybrid approaches, providing responsive assistance and practical solutions. When they advise a course of action, following their guidance has consistently yielded positive results. I would rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

I use various security solutions for personal and business use. For personal security, I utilize Defender on my server. Additionally, I use Symantec products such as Symantec Endpoint and Nelson, along with Vera and Kaspersky. Each serves a specific purpose, catering to both personal security needs, including Social Security and Internet security, and business solutions like GravityZone. Ensuring the best possible protection for my staff is a priority and that is why we switched to it.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The deployment process takes approximately ten minutes. Upon logging in, a purple screen prompts me to install Endpoint. Once I download the file and open it, the system automatically downloads and initiates the installation process. After accepting the terms and services, a simple double-click and a brief wait of ten minutes complete the installation. It's a straightforward process that doesn't require extensive IT knowledge, making it accessible to users with varying levels of expertise.

It is certainly worth the investment.

The pricing is reasonable when I compare it to other security solutions, particularly Kaspersky, it stands out. It offers an excellent solution at a more favorable price point. There is an extra cost associated with batch management, requiring a separate purchase. It's treated as an additional service, and it would be more convenient if it were bundled into a single package. I would rate it four out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.

We've deployed it for various enterprises across different verticals. One example is IT companies, but it's applicable to a wide range of businesses.

It helps secure the organization against various cyber threats, including malware attacks, zero-day exploits, and ransomware. It specifically helps mitigate the risks associated with ransomware attacks.

There is room for improvement in CPU utilization. 

We've been selling Bitdefender for almost six to eight years now, including GravityZone Enterprise Security. We work with all versions of GravityZone, including the current one.

It is perfectly stable. We haven't received any complaints from customers regarding stability or performance. It's been smooth sailing so far.

It is very easy to scale. You can simply add more licenses. We have customers with varying user counts, ranging from around 3,000 to 76 users. It really depends on individual needs.

It's very customer-friendly. We haven't had any major issues, only very minor ones.

It's quite straightforward, definitely not complex. It's designed for enterprise deployment, so ease of use is a priority.

The deployment time depends on the number of users. It could range from around four hours to twenty-four hours. 

The deployment is similar to our other deployment procedures. First, we ensure customer data backup, then remove any existing antivirus software, and finally, we deploy the new GravityZone Enterprise Security. That's the basic overview.

It can be deployed as a cloud-based solution, on-premises depending on the customer's preference and needs.

Not much of a team is needed for deployment. Our software engineers show the customer's IT team how to deploy. Once they see it done on a couple of machines, they can handle it themselves. 

Unless you need us to do the complete installation, your IT team can manage it after our initial demonstration.

We show them the ropes, and they handle the rest.

In India, licensing is based on annual contracts. It's not extremely expensive, but not the cheapest either. I'd rate it somewhere around seven or eight out of ten.

It's a reliable and effective solution. Even for large enterprises, installation is quite fast, especially if you have an active directory and can push policies and modules easily. Deploying to a thousand users can be done within a day. It's simple and quick to set up and manage.

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

I like how quickly changes take effect. The detection has been excellent, with a good rate and no false positives. Virus signatures are updated very frequently, which impresses me.

It has greatly increased our confidence. In the past 18 months, we feel confident that this part of our antivirus and security protection is well covered.

We use patch management to keep our software up-to-date, significantly mitigating our risk of vulnerabilities. We're confident that Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security will either already know about new threats and have updated our machines, or they'll advise us quickly on mitigating them until an update is available.

We've found that the integration works very well with our Active Directory. It can detect which users are on a particular machine, which is useful as we share machines between users. It provides the level of detail we need.

The tool needs to improve patch and vulnerability management.

I have been working with the product for eight to nine years. 

We need to pay extra for support, but it is outstanding. 

Positive

For the initial setup, we tested two configurations in parallel. We started with a complex solution using an on-site distribution server to get updates from the cloud and apply them to our internal network. However, when we tested both versions, we found the cloud connectivity for updates was secure, requiring only a small firewall opening. This increased our confidence in the product, so we chose the simpler, straightforward configuration. This decision has served us very well, making management and deployment easy.

The tool's pricing structure is good. We use an annual subscription. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. It would score higher if it included enhanced patch management and some form of vulnerability management. With these improvements, it could easily be a ten out of ten product. Despite these areas for improvement, we plan to stay with the product for at least the next three years, likely longer.