MetaDefender vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint comparison

OPSWAT and Microsoft are both solutions in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category. OPSWAT is ranked #34, while Microsoft is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.4. OPSWAT holds a 1.2% mindshare in ATP, compared to Microsoft’s 5.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of OPSWAT users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Microsoft users who would recommend it.

MetaDefender

Read 2 MetaDefender reviews

2,334 Views
420 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Microsoft Defender for Endp...

Read 213 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint reviews

33,374 Views
1,669 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

MetaDefender

Microsoft Defender for Endp...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 15, 2026

MetaDefender and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint are competing security solutions. MetaDefender shows attractiveness in pricing and support, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is perceived to have higher value due to its comprehensive features.

Features: MetaDefender offers strong malware detection capabilities, advanced file sanitization, and vulnerability assessment. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint provides extensive endpoint detection and response, threat intelligence, and integration with Microsoft's ecosystem, highlighting its advantage in versatility and integration.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: MetaDefender is recognized for a straightforward setup process and highly regarded customer support. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint benefits from integration with existing Microsoft infrastructure, potentially simplifying deployment for current Microsoft users. Its customer service is dependable, though integration offers Microsoft Defender an edge.

Pricing and ROI: MetaDefender's setup costs are attractive for quick ROI with competitive pricing. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint may have higher initial costs, justified by its advanced features leading to enhanced long-term value, suggesting higher potential return due to robust features.

To learn more, read our detailed MetaDefender vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

MetaDefender vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,873 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

MetaDefender

Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)

34th

Ranking in Anti-Malware Tools

29th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (32nd), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (12th)

Microsoft Defender for Endp...

Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)

5th

Ranking in Anti-Malware Tools

1st

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

213

Ranking in other categories

Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (2nd), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (3rd), Microsoft Security Suite (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of MetaDefender is 1.2%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is 5.5%, down from 7.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint	5.5%
MetaDefender	1.2%
Other	93.3%

Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)

Featured Reviews

Eido Ben Noun

Cyber Security Architect at Diffiesec

Multi‑engine detection has significantly improved secure file transfers and threat prevention

Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.

Read full review

Robert Arbuckle

Security Analyst III at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees

Automatically isolates threats and integrates with logging to reduce response time

Overall, I would evaluate the Microsoft support level that I receive at probably about a seven, but that depends on the day. It has been spotty. We have had issues where the urgency level of the Microsoft support is not as high as ours, especially during a data breach or potential data breach situation. We have had issues with some of the offshore support being lackluster. One specific thing that comes to mind is we were on a support call with our CISO on the call, and the Microsoft agent, who did not actually work for Microsoft, is one of the vendors that Microsoft uses for support, said, "Just to set expectations, my lunch break is in an hour and I am going to go away then." For us, it was already ten o'clock at night and we had been working on this for a couple of hours, trying to get a security engineer on with us. For him to tell us that he was going to go away and have lunch, it was, "Okay, but go find somebody else if you need to." It was just the lackluster approach, and it seemed like he did not really care. We seem to get a lot of this when we get non-Microsoft support. I can identify areas for improvement with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, as it is kind of a convoluted mess to try to take care of false positives. Especially when they have been identified as false positives but they keep going off over and over again. It is great for my pocketbook because it generates a lot of on-call action, but I would really prefer more sleep at two o'clock in the morning than dealing with false positives. I would say that the unified portal for managing Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is suitable for both teams as they are all in there. It would be great if they would stop moving things around and renaming things, which makes sense. The new XDR portal is pretty nice. Being able to have it central again inside of the regular Security Center without having to open up two windows is helpful. Overall, I think it is pretty good. There is always going to be something that could be improved, such as alerting and the ability to modify alerts would be a little bit helpful to have. Being able to add more data into the alerts and turn off alerts that are not as useful would be beneficial. It is hard to say what the quantitative impact the security exposure management feature has had on our company's security, because a lot of it is kind of subjective. I think we are sitting at around a fifty percent score still, and a lot of it is just kind of unusual circumstances that we cannot really implement without breaking the organization.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"OPSWAT is the best alternative."

"I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done."

"Defender for Endpoint has one dashboard with security-related information, vulnerability-related information, and basic recommendations from Microsoft, all in different tabs. That's helpful because if we want to fix only the recommended ones, we can go fix all of them..."

"It performs well. The stability is seamless."

"Stable endpoint manager, antivirus, and antimalware, with fast technical support and a straightforward setup."

"Defender is a part of Windows; you just need to enable it. There is no need to install anything."

"The solution is highly scalable."

"It comes included with the Windows license."

"It's not really visible for the user - which is a benefit."

"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is beneficial because we are using Microsoft Windows and all the core solutions are made by Microsoft, such as the authentic platform, operating system, and antivirus protection. It is a heterogeneous environment. We had to use third-party solutions before and update everything separately. For example, the policy for antivirus. With Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, when Microsoft Windows receives updates it will update with it. This is one main advantage of this solution."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint pros

Cons

"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."

"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."

"More integration with different platforms is an area for improvement for this product, and should be included in its next release."

"The solution needs to improve its ransomware. It's not so good. It could also use some general performance optimization for the computers the solution operates on, to ensure it does not slow down the devices."

"There could be an increase in security for the solution."

"It's not quite a mature solution just yet. It needs more time to grow and develop."

"The most problematic part of this program is the difficult customer service."

"Defender is free for one year. Once that year is over, we will switch to Kaspersky."

"What I think can be improved on Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is that the whitelisting abilities are pitiful, and the understanding of how you go about doing that by the support techs that you speak with is really bad, so that I think is an area where Microsoft Defender for Endpoint needs improvement; the understanding and support of that and what actually works is pretty buggy."

"Right now, there's a portal for Azure, portals for Microsoft Office, and portals for endpoints. It would be good to have only one portal and integrate everything."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price."

"We mostly use Microsoft products. We use Office 365, and we use Azure. We're also a Microsoft partner. So, the licensing was much cheaper for us, and at the same time, a lot of the features that we were looking for were included in Defender."

"There is an annual license required."

"The normal, standalone model, is not expensive, but the enterprise model that includes the bundle with email and some web protection, is a bit more expensive."

"Most people don't realize M365/E5 licenses are an amazing deal. They think "Oh, it's expensive," and I'll ask, "Compared to what?" If you don't have it you will have to buy licenses for multiple products to fill the same security space that you would have gotten with the Microsoft product. Go figure out how much it costs you per product, per user, and then come back and tell me how things add up financially."

"If you don't purchase the advanced threat protection then there is no additional charge."

"It is so expensive. It isn't cheaper than McAfee or other solutions."

"The E5 license is the one that I recommend because it comes with Cloud App Security, which is a good thing to have on top of Microsoft Defender."

"Microsoft Defender is an expensive product in my country."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

16%

Healthcare Company

12%

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	81
Midsize Enterprise	40
Large Enterprise	95

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for MetaDefender?

The pricing of MetaDefender is about hundreds of dollars. If I remember correctly, when someone attempted to buy from us one instance of OPSWAT, it was about nine thousand dollars for multi-scannin...

See all answers

What needs improvement with MetaDefender?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for MetaDefender?

I have used MetaDefender for one and a half years, deploying it in different environments and managing a team of professional services that deploy MetaDefender products in customer environments. I ...

See all answers

How is Cortex XDR compared with Microsoft Defender?

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface, applies behavioral-based endpoint protection and response, and includes risk-ba...

See all answers

Which offers better endpoint security - Symantec or Microsoft Defender?

We use Symantec because we do not use MS Enterprise products, but in my opinion, Microsoft Defender is a superior solution. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security s...

See all answers

How does Microsoft Defender for Endpoint compare with Crowdstrike Falcon?

The CrowdStrike solution delivers a lot of information about incidents. It has a very light sensor that will never push your machine hardware to "test", you don't have the usual "scan now" feature ...

See all answers

Comparisons

VirusTotal vs MetaDefender

Compared 19% of the time

CrowdStrike Falcon vs MetaDefender

Compared 8% of the time

OPSWAT Filescan Sandbox vs MetaDefender

Compared 8% of the time

Fortinet FortiGuard vs MetaDefender

Compared 7% of the time

ReversingLabs vs MetaDefender

Compared 6% of the time

More MetaDefender Competitors

CrowdStrike Falcon vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 4% of the time

HP Wolf Security vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 4% of the time

Symantec Endpoint Security vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 4% of the time

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 4% of the time

F-Secure Total vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 3% of the time

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

MetaDefender

March 2026

Download MetaDefender product report

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

March 2026

Download Microsoft Defender for Endpoint product report

Also Known As

OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core

Microsoft Defender ATP, Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection, MS Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Defender Antivirus

Interactive Demo

Demo not available

OPSWAT

Microsoft

Overview

MetaDefender provides advanced multiscanning capabilities using 30+ anti-malware engines, ensuring high detection efficacy and robust prevention mechanisms.

MetaDefender's approach combines multiple security technologies like Metascan, Deep CDR, and adaptive sandboxing. These integrated solutions offer comprehensive protection against malware and vulnerabilities, catering to cloud, on-prem, and hybrid environments with enhanced performance and automation.

What are the key features of MetaDefender?

Metascan Multiscanning: Utilizes 30+ AV engines for superior malware detection.
Deep CDR: Eliminates active threats by reconstructing safe files.
File-based Vulnerability Assessment: Identifies software vulnerabilities before deployment.
Adaptive Sandbox Analysis: AI-powered sandbox to expose evasive threats.
Proactive DLP: Detects and handles sensitive data to prevent data loss.
Expanded File-Type Coverage: Supports modern documents and archived files.
Enhanced Automation: Faster scans with consistent policy enforcement.
Improved Reporting: Comprehensive end-to-end file action tracking.

What benefits and ROI can MetaDefender offer?

High detection rates: Boasts over 99% detection of known and unknown threats.
Reduced Workflow: Dramatic cut in file-borne malware incidents and manual work.
Flexible Deployment: Consistent performance in cloud, on-prem, hybrid, and air-gapped environments.

MetaDefender is trusted in industries such as financial services, healthcare, manufacturing, and government, where rigorous policy control and auditability are vital. Its diverse deployment options allow for consistent security across datacenters, OT networks, and secure facilities, meeting stringent compliance needs.

OPSWAT

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a comprehensive security solution that provides advanced threat protection for organizations. It offers real-time protection against various types of cyber threats, including malware, viruses, ransomware, and phishing attacks.

With its powerful machine-learning capabilities, it can detect and block sophisticated attacks before they can cause any harm. The solution also includes endpoint detection and response (EDR) capabilities, allowing organizations to quickly investigate and respond to security incidents. It provides detailed insights into the attack timeline, enabling security teams to understand the scope and impact of an incident.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint also offers proactive threat hunting, allowing organizations to proactively search for and identify potential threats within their network. It integrates seamlessly with other Microsoft security solutions, such as Microsoft Defender XDR, to provide a unified and holistic security approach. With its centralized management console, organizations can easily deploy, configure, and monitor the security solution across their entire network.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a robust and scalable security solution that helps organizations protect their endpoints and data from evolving cyber threats.

Microsoft

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

Petrofrac, Metro CSG, Christus Health

Buyer's Guide

MetaDefender vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

March 2026

Free Report: MetaDefender vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Find out what your peers are saying about MetaDefender vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our MetaDefender vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint report.

See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors and best Anti-Malware Tools vendors.

We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.