Kaspersky Next EDR Expert Reviews

We use this solution mainly for protection, but we also have another solution we use for this.

The content filtering options are good.

It consumes many system resources, and there should be more EDR details.

We have been using this solution for one year, and we are using the new version. It is deployed on-premises.

The solution is stable. Regarding detection, sometimes it consumes a lot of system resources.

It is scalable. We have not scaled it yet, but our customers use Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response, and they have not had any issues scaling.

We have not needed technical support. Instead, we deal with our cases and use Google to solve our problems.

We prefer CrowdStrike to Kaspersky.

It is not easy to set up. I believe the cloud version is easier to implement. We only deployed it on three computers, which didn't take much time. It was a bit of a struggle.

It is cheap compared to CrowdStrike. It costs $20 per user.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten. Regarding advice, Kaspersky should work with a signature-less solution only because it's better and does not consume too many system resources. They should not use indicators because some new next-generation antivirus vendors are currently not using IOCs. Instead, they use IOA, which is better. In addition, Kaspersky could be GDPR compliant.

We primarily use the solution for our servers. It's for security.

We enjoy the solution as, when we are online we are secure. It's easy to use and not too heavy. It doesn't slow down any machines at all. 

The product is quite stable.

It's scalable enough for us.

The product is straightforward to set up. 

There could be more secure.

The prices can go down a little bit.

I've used the solution for quite some time. It might have been six years at this point. 

It's a stable product. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

We find the product to be scalable. You can expand it if you need to.

We have five people using it in our organization. 

We've never contacted technical support. We've never had an issue. It works the way we need it to and we've never had a problem.

We started with Kaspersky. We didn't use a different solution previously.

The initial setup was straightforward. We are a tech company and therefore we found it pretty simple. Even a layman, however, can do the installation. It's not complex or difficult. We deployed it with our engineers. 

We handled the setup ourselves. We didn't need the help of any consultants or integrators. 

We'd like the pricing to be lower. It can get a bit pricey.

We pay for an annual license.

As a cloud solution, we're always on the latest version. We update it automatically on the cloud.

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. There's room for improvement, however, we've largely been happy with it. 

I use Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response for security protection for our endpoints for the users.

There is a problem with the solution, it came from Russia and we are looking for a replacement.

I have been using Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response for approximately two years.

Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is a stable solution.

I have found Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response not to be scalable.

We have approximately 700 users using the solution. We do not have plans to increase usage. We are looking to switch solutions.

We were using Panda Antivirus previously.

Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response's initial installation were straightforward. To installation of the solution on the end-users systems takes 10 minutes. However, from the console, it is a little more time, approximately two days to configure.

We only needed one person for the implementation and support of the solution. We had some support hours from the vendor if needed.

We were on a three-year license to use Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response. The price could be better.

I would not recommend this solution to others. We are moving to different solutions.

I rate Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response an eight out of ten.

We use Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response for the protection of our system from the internet, firewall, malware, and viruses.

Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is an effective protection solution.

Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is very heavy on the system resources. It uses a lot of memory and the system can become slow.

I have been using Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response for approximately two years.

The stability of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is good.

Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is a scalable solution.

We do not plan to increase usage.

I have not used technical support. The solution is simple to use, they provide the tools that we need. However, the support is readily available if I need them.

The installation of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response was simple and fast. It only takes approximately seven minutes.

I did the implementation myself.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response a nine out of ten.

It's an antivirus solution that we use on-premises with cloud-sync.

The issue with Kaspersky EDR is the sandbox. I'd like to have the ability to manage it on the cloud as well.

I've been using it for two years.

It is stable.

It's scalable, but it requires additional servers. We have about 10,000 users.

Technical support from Kaspersky is okay.

The installation of the physical servers is very simple, but the software is not that simple. It takes about one or two days for the virtual environment.

We have yearly licensing costs, and they are not cheap.

I would recommend Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response and rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

The solution is great for customers who would like to secure their endpoints and provide protection for users. It's based on the RFP response, actually, our customer reference.

The simplicity is great

It's a very light product. 

We've found the solution to be stable.

It's scalable and easy to expand.

The installation process is very simple. 

Symantec is a better option. Kaspersky needs to strengthen its standing in the market.

It would be ideal if they could make it even easier to use.

I've been using the solution for maybe five years at this point. 

The stability of the product is great. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

You can scale the solution if you need to. It's not difficult. 

We have 15 users on the solution currently.

I've never directly contacted technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful they would be.

We sometimes deal with Symantec or FireEye, depending on the requirements. 

The solution is easy to set up. It's not a difficult process. That said, I didn't do the installation myself and therefore cannot speak on how long the deployment took. 

Our engineers handled the installation process. 

We pay a monthly licensing fee. 

I would recommend the solution to others. It's been good so far. 

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

Kaspersky is useful for detecting zero-day attacks. It's signature-based and we get regular updates from the cloud.

Kaspersky is easy to use, and it performs well. 

I'd like to see more seamless integration with the cloud and other products as well as improvements to Kaspersky's sandboxing features. 

I've been working with Kaspersky EDR for a few years now.

Kaspersky is stable and scalable. 

Kaspersky support is good. 

Installing Kaspersky is complex. It requires more work from system admins and takes almost one week to deploy, including integration and mapping with other solutions. You also have to configure Kaspersky EDR sandboxing then set up permissions for various teams and customers. 

Kaspersky is licensed on a yearly basis.

I rate Kaspersky EDR seven out of ten. I usually recommended other solutions because Kaspersky is more difficult to implement. I only deploy it when the customer requires Kaspersky. But Kaspersky requires more labor from the technical team to install and implement.

This solution is used for network security.

The most valuable feature is endpoint protection.

The solution can improve by providing automatic fixing of vulnerabilities and reducing the resources used in the server component and endpoint agent. They are very bulky and use a lot of CPU, memory, and hard drive resources.

I have been using Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response for approximately six years.

Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is stable.

I have found this solution not to be scalable.

Our clients that are using this solution are small-sized businesses.

The technical support for this solution is not good. They do not have the availability of resources.

The installation is very easy.

The price of the solution could be reduced.

Those wanting to implement this solution have to understand that fine-tuning and adjusting their policy plan has to be a regular activity.

I rate Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response a seven out of ten.