Malwarebytes Reviews

We use the product as an antivirus for browser security.

The product's stability needs improvement.

We have been using Malwarebytes for 15 years.

The platform is stable, and we haven't encountered any issues. However, there is always room for improvement. I rate the stability an eight.

I previously used Windows Defender. Numerous assessments indicate it catches around 80% to 90% of threats. However, Malwarebytes achieved a higher success rate.

The platform is straightforward to install. Its automation functionality runs updates seamlessly in the background, requiring minimal user intervention.

We deploy and maintain the platform with the help of our in-house team.

The platform pricing is competitive with other antivirus products. Also, one license allows you to run it on up to two devices simultaneously.

Malwarebytes offers robust security features and implements innovative functionalities. For instance, it allows users to check if their email addresses are mentioned on compromised sites.

It has a user-friendly interface. I recommend it for commercial organizations. For non-commercial organizations, Microsoft Defender is more suitable.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

Our company deals with EPP EDR, MDR, patch management, DNS filtering, and vulnerability assessment of Malwarebytes. They have two products, one for businesses and one for home use. If you use the one with EPP, it is meant for businesses.

Malwarebytes is a good product for SMBs since it provides malware and ransomware protection, allowing SMBs to secure their endpoints.

The most valuable features of the solution are malware scanning and malware removal.

The improvements needed in the product depend on the company and its plans, but I think that the product is mostly okay. Malwarebytes has to keep updating as per the market trend in regards to what and where the malware is, which is not a major challenge for other products. If Malwarebytes matches the same intensity as its competitors, it can do good in the market. Malwarebytes needs to keep up with the market updates and release products that align with what its competitors are doing in the market.

I have been using Malwarebytes for more than five years. My company has a partnership with Malwarebytes.

It is a stable solution. I have not experienced any downtimes. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. We can scale up the use of the solution.

My clients are usually SMBs.

The solution's technical support is clear as per the SLA. The support is provided to us immediately whenever needed. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of Malwarebytes was easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud. My customers have the tool deployed on their own cloud.

The time for deployment depends on the number of users, which can be a hundred, two hundred, or five hundred users. Depending on your approach, if you have Active Directory and domain controller, you can deploy it centrally from the console itself with the tools that can help you deploy faster. You can also deploy the tool one by one, a process in which you can install the agent and simply install the agent and the machines, after which it will be rest registered on the cloud immediately.

If you look at the pricing of some other products, the pricing of Malwarebytes is pretty much okay since it is neither cheap nor too high, making it fall in the middle.

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

Malwarebytes provides features like device control, scan engine, malware protection, ransomware protection, rollback features, and managed detection and response. The tool also provides features like integrated patch management, vulnerability assessment, and DNS filtering. If any of my customers prefer Malwarebytes, they can have the complete package.

I recommend the product if it fits the budget of those planning to use it. It's a good product. They can have clear visibility on the endpoints since it helps them protect from ransomware and other advanced threats. Malwarebytes is an affordable tool. One can use it, especially if someone doesn't have a high budget, since it helps fulfill the basic requirements.

Malwarebytes is not there in the reports from Gartner or IDC. They have their own labs to test their products. In general, they don't have any third-party reports as of now. Malwarebytes was previously included in one of the reports from Gartner. I think Malwarebytes doesn't participate in the reports from Gartner. If we look at the market trends and the industry, most customers look at Gartner's reports to identify whether a product is a leader, challenger, or a big product, depending on which they choose. If Malwarebytes was included in reports from Gartner, I would have rated the tool an eight or nine out of ten.

Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

Malwarebytes has very limited use cases. 

It was very good. It enhanced our performance in our company. When we replaced it, we used it as an antivirus. It has more than antivirus capabilities yet less than XDR servers. We are very impressed with its antivirus capabilities and it's helped us a lot there. 

I can evaluate it as a very good antivirus, however, not as an EDR.

It is very, very basic.

I got a demo from them. They promised that in the next version they will have all the features they've been lacking a bit.

I was very satisfied with Malwarebytes in terms of its antivirus abilities. It works as an antivirus better than a lot of others.

It was easy to set up.

It's not covering everything as we just started in EDR.

In Malwarebytes, there's no response. The response is very limited, and integration is very limited.

It's not good in search hunting. In fact, it has no search hunting at all and no strict intelligence tools. It offers no account monitoring at all.

I want to see XDR functionality so that I can respond. I want to have some strict intelligence integration with malware attacks, and integration with other tools that I will use to respond to threats.

I was satisfied with the antivirus capabilities originally, however, in my new environment, I was not satisfied. Now, I'm trying to have an XDR. I have to have a complete solution. Therefore, I'm looking into Microsoft, an XDR in CrowdStrike, or Sentinel ONE.

I've used the solution for around one year. 

The solution has been stable and straightforward. It's reliable and the performance is good. We haven't had issues with bugs and glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

I have noticed that there is some scalability. They promised they're adding new modules and it'll be straightforward to deploy them also. It will likely be more scalable in the future. 

In my company, we have more than 100 machines covered with the solution. We have just an agent, or you can say a warden, that communicates with the cloud engine.

It's considered an essential solution and therefore is constantly running. It works in the background all the time on every machine. 

We have contacted technical support. They are very good. 

I'm currently trying CrowdStrike. I found it very, very good. I'm dropping Malwarebytes. I will not renew the license.

I used Microsoft Security Center previously at another company. It included EDR also.

The initial setup is very simple and quite straightforward. 

The deployment process took only one day.

It was on the cloud. That made it all pretty simple.

Some prerequisites I integrated. It was really easy.

It's working in the background. There's nothing to do. Only administrators can do some tasks. For all users, there is nothing to do at all. It is automated.

You only need one person to handle deployment and maintenance. They are in cybersecurity. 

I did the implementation by myself with the help of their technical support.

I have not witnessed an ROI. However, it is worth it to have it as any security consequences not dealt with can destroy a business. 

The prices are public. You can try and get on the internet, however, this is not the real cost. There are some other costs. It depends on how many modules you are buying. If you will activate all modules or just only a few modules the price will be different. 

We have other services. They provide nice services besides your software. The price for those depends on how you contract with them.

In comparison, for example, the Sentinel ONE device is very cheap since you don't have all modules to add on.

While we have Malwarebytes now, we want to replace it with maybe CrowdStrike, Sentinel ONE, or Microsoft. We're looking at all of them.

I am a customer. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. 

It's very good, however, it has not covered all of the areas that I want to cover and make.

I'm a cybersecurity manager. My goal is to detect, respond, and prevent and to do that I need to use only one tool or to minimize the number of tools I'm using and my team is using. I want to minimize the number of team members that will work in cybersecurity as well. I need a solution that includes a lot of modules that can cover most of my requirements.

That said, if you want a very good antivirus and a basic easy functionality, which is a very cheap price, it would be Malwarebytes.

As an antivirus, I would rate the product nine out of ten, however, as an EDR, I'd only rate it five out of ten. Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.  

I like Malwarebytes, however, I am moving to another product as I need functionality and features, and it's not exactly the right product for me now.

It is for endpoint detection and protection. We primarily use it to protect our Windows machines. We've got endpoints that are out in the field. We're a construction company, so we've got mobile endpoints using Windows out in the field and in our two offices.

It is 100% on the cloud. In terms of the provider, we use Malwarebytes themselves.

We're only working with 30 or 40 endpoints at most, so we don't have a huge fleet. We have a small IT team, and being able to manage even a small fleet of devices that are out in the field and being able to respond and remediate really quickly from the cloud-based console has been really helpful for us. It saved us some time, for sure.

Being able to cloud manage it from just a cloud login is valuable. We can get to it from anywhere, which is really helpful. The fact that we can remediate from the cloud console is one of our favorite features.

I would like to see a little more detail in the log. So, when an event occurs, I'd like to know not just when it happened and on what device, but what activity was taking place on the machine at the time so that we can drill down. If we get a false positive, we have to do a lot of research and go back and forth with our end-users to know why it was a false positive. So, having a little more detail around detections and events would probably be my most asked feature.

Its price can also be improved. It is really expensive.

We've been using Malwarebytes for about two and a half years.

It's really stable. It uses a lot of system resources, but it's really stable.

For our purposes, we would never really run out of scale for it. These types of solutions are run to do thousands and thousands of systems. We're probably never going to hit even hundreds.

Currently, we've got at most 40 endpoints, and that's our entire organization. Its users range from owners to vice presidents to IT to final end-users.

We do not have plans to increase its usage. In fact, if anything, we have plans to either decrease usage or probably move away from it entirely based on the cost.

I have only been here for about six to nine months. We didn't need to contact them during this time. In fact, I am fairly certain that the most amount of contact that we've had to do with them was just during the initial setup. After that, we've been able to handle everything ourselves.

There was no solution used previously.

Its initial setup was pretty easy. They gave us a login. We generated an application download and a few keys, and we were off and running.

Its deployment probably took about a week or two. We could have gotten it done a lot faster, but we were having to schedule one-on-one sessions with our end-users to make sure that we could remote into the system and download the appropriate software and get it set up. Realistically, we could have done a full implementation in two or three days, but just due to schedules and other things, it was lengthened out to about two weeks. The implementation, however, was pretty simple.

For its deployment and maintenance, one person is required.

We used a reseller. I can't recall who at the moment, but our experience with them was pretty good. We had some initial questions right out the gate in terms of capabilities and launch and how we were going to launch it. They were pretty good about getting back to us. They were a little bit weird on offering prices though. As I recall, we really had to hound them for getting solid price information out of them.

ROI on the product at our scale is going to be how much management does it take, which is what we want low. We want a low amount of interaction with the product as possible and a really high and effective detection rate. It definitely has a really high detection rate. In fact, sometimes that rate is so high that we're getting annoyed by false positives, but we'd like to have the system self-remediate as much as possible because our IT department is basically one person.

It is really expensive. We've got between 30 and 40 licenses every year, and for the number of licenses that we have, we're finding that Malwarebytes on average costs between $900 and $1,000 more per year than comparable options. We're paying about $3,300 per year for these licenses.

There are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fee.

I believe that there were some other options evaluated at the time. I think Kaspersky and ESET were evaluated, but their implementation was going to be a little difficult from my understanding.

Based on a lot of the research that we've done, especially for small to medium businesses, it seems like there are a lot of other solutions out there that have as good or slightly more features and are a lot cheaper.

I'd give it a solid seven out of 10. It is a very effective solution for us, and it meets a lot of our needs. It doesn't meet all of them, but it does meet a lot of our needs. Based on the ROI on cost and seeing other things out there that are a lot cheaper but equivalent or possibly a little better in terms of features, we most likely will be moving away from the product.

I use the product primarily to detect and diagnose threats and enhance security within my organization. It helps detect and investigate potential threats in real time, allowing us to block malicious files promptly.

The most valuable features are its user-friendliness and the ease of use of the user interface. Additionally, its robustness in detecting and diagnosing threats is highly beneficial.

The product could be improved in blocking malicious traffic, such as communication with known malicious IP addresses.

I have been using Malwarebytes for about six years.

The technical support services are good. The response time depends on the severity of the issue.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward. Depending on pre-installation tasks, we deployed it across about 400 endpoints within minutes. It required a small team, typically security engineers and IT admins. Mostly, it involved updating the agents, which can be done through the console for maintenance.

The product generates a return on investment in terms of cost-effectiveness and efficient security features. 

Malwarebytes is a cost-effective product.

The solution helps by blocking potential malicious files and allowing us to conduct on-demand scans. I recommend it for organizations looking to deploy on client machines. I rate it an eight out of ten.

We use the product for endpoint protection and response and DNS filtering. 

The product provides notifications for suspicious events. We have several public access points. The product helps to prevent unauthorized entry. Its most valuable features are pre-installation procedures and a cloud console. The console's interface is simple and can be viewed easily to take action. It covers everything in terms of security threats. 

A solution must be installed in the main gateway to give an overview of the incoming and outgoing traffic. The technical support team's response time should be faster. 

I have been using the product for a year. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate Malwarebytes' scalability a ten out of ten. My company has 400 users who use it 24/7. 

We switched to the product because the previous solution did not detect some malware incidents. 

I rate the tool's deployment a ten out of ten. My organization has 200 endpoints, so deployment took a day to complete. We download the installation, set up the policies, and deploy them to all machines in the domain.

We completed the deployment in-house. One system administrator is enough to handle it. This resource can be used for maintenance as well. 

I rate the tool's ROI a ten out of ten. 

I rate the tool's pricing a five out of ten. 

We evaluated Sophos, Check Point, Microsoft Defender, and Bitdefender. 

I rate Malwarebytes a nine out of ten. 

I use it at my workplace and in my communications with my colleagues.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that I can use it wherever I want, be it at the office, at home, or even outside.

The stability and performance of the solution are areas with shortcomings that need improvement.

I have been using Malwarebytes for two to three years.

The solution is mostly stable, but maybe once out of ten circumstances, there are some issues, but very seldom.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I don't know much about the solution's scalability because I don't have the visibility of the services being expanded to other locations, but it should be scalable since it is a solution available over the internet.

My company has around 1,000 users of the solution.

I don't know if my company has plans to increase the use of the solution.

The initial setup of Malwarebytes is easy. I need to log in to my account, so nothing much is needed.

For deployment, you register for the account, and everything is automated.

The solution has so far not created any issues in my computer.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

Malwarebytes is more of an Endpoint Protection Platform inside a NextGen AV solution. We use it to do, it does real-time protections, but our primary use for that product is compliance scanning. So traditional threat monitoring plus daily scans, full scan, system scans, etc. And it covers the signature and heuristics gap for us.

The fact that the agent is SaaS-based is a major improvement. So with COVID and the new permitter being the endpoint itself out in the wild, Malwarebytes allowed for protection and communication 100 percent of the time. So if it has an internet connection, we're connected and protected. So that was one of the biggest benefits. We were running Windows Defender before, which if an asset wasn't on VPN or went off-network, it was essentially out in the wind. We didn't know what was happening to it from an AV perspective.

Malwarebytes is easy to use. There's not a lot I like about it, but I will say that they have some of the best signatures out there. As far as traditional AV technology and detection solutions go, that's probably what I'd like about them the most. They have some of the best signature writers out there.

Malwarebytes is too simplistic. From a SOC IR perspective, it doesn't give you very much data around it. It doesn't tie things or provide SHA-1 and SHA-256 detection information, which makes it hard to do an additional investigation. It should give you more hash information, IOC-based information, etc. It also gives a lot of false positives. That's one of our biggest beefs. 

I've been using Malwarebytes for three years.

The Malwarebytes agent has a design flaw that impacts performance. They built it on top of ClamAV, which is okay, but they run into some problems excluding certain locations or dealing with high-performance impact solutions. If you exclude it, then it's excluded completely, and you lose telemetry on it entirely. Again, we have experienced some problems with their agents breaking in their own update processes.

Scalability's fine. We never ran into any issues, and we're a large company with 17,000 users. So I think that Malwarebytes can scale just fine. But that's probably due to the solution's simple nature. The more data you're pulling back, the more complex it gets, which creates a greater load on the backend systems that they're hosting. However, Malwarebytes is pretty lean right now, so performance has never really been a problem from a console perspective.

I'd say that Malwarebytes support is fine, but they lack maturity when it comes to enterprise-class security solutions. 

We were running Windows Defender, but we switched to Malwarebytes because it is a cloud-hosted SaaS solution that is as effective on the cloud as it is on-prem.

Straightforward. We're a very large environment, so it took us a couple of days, but technically, you could begin deployment almost immediately. As is the case with any AV product, you have to fine-tune it to deal with false positives and performance issues. Aside from that, the deployment itself can be done very quickly. You can use SECM, PDQ. They even have their own deployment tool that you can use. It's pretty easy to get it out there. 

We did the implementation ourselves. My security department partnered with our patch management and asset deployment team. We gave them the packages and the switching, then they began deployment from there. It doesn't need a lot of maintenance. About three people should do it. Whoever deployed the solution will occasionally need to redeploy or fix an agent. You also need one or two frontend security staff to operate it.

I would say that it's affordable. It costs much less than Sentinel One, CrowdStrike, or anything of that nature. But, at the same time, you are getting what you pay for. So I would say it's one of the best when you're comparing traditional NextGen AVs like Webroot that aren't the best in the bunch. McAfee and some of those other ones bring a lot more different options to the table. But if it's just straight AV technology, I would put Malwarebytes at the top of the heap in terms of value for the money.

I would rate Malwarebytes eight out of 10 if I'm judging it by the standards of traditional endpoint protection or NextGen AV solution. When it comes to frontend protections, it has some of the best definitions. In addition, they do traditional signature and heuristic detection a lot better than Microsoft and some other players in that space. But if you're lumping it in with other EDR solutions, it's a zero. 

If you plan to use Malwarebytes, I suggest utilizing its auto-patching mechanism as much as possible and aggressively keeping it up to date.