MetaDefender Reviews

My main use case for MetaDefender is on my devices. I have a specific example of how I use MetaDefender on my devices in that it has been installed by the administrator on my VMs which are being listed on my public cloud.

I don't have anything specific to add about how I use MetaDefender in my setup, as it is protecting my whole VMs, so not any particular file.

The best features MetaDefender offers, in my opinion, are that it adapts the policies on the go, and that is the best feature.

When I say it adapts policies on the go, it has the ability that if there is a new policy or the new configuration that has come up without any downtime, it just adjusts it and reiterates to all of the users and all of the devices. MetaDefender has positively impacted my organization as it has reduced time for the users.

MetaDefender reduces time for users in their working, as it does not occupy the RAM usage of their devices plus it does not take time for the downtime or shutting down or the rebooting of the devices.

I have not seen any areas where I can suggest improvements for MetaDefender, so probably it is good enough. I would rate it an eight because its interface can be improved and it can improve their integrations as well, so there is room for improvement.

I have been working in my current field for four and a half years. I have been using MetaDefender for the past six months.

MetaDefender is stable.

MetaDefender's scalability is pretty much scalable.

The customer support is good.

I previously used a different solution, Palo Alto, which I switched from because it was very expensive.

I have seen a return on investment as fewer employees are needed in terms of implementation.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that it is good and at par with other competitors.

Before choosing MetaDefender, I evaluated other options, including Palo Alto and Check Point, as many were evaluated.

My impression of the detection rates provided by MetaScan Multi-scanning is that it is good and pretty accurate. I would assess the effectiveness of Deep CDR in reconstructing files safely and without signatures as they are pretty much effective, and it is really useful for the administrator.

My thoughts on the file-based vulnerability assessment feature in identifying vulnerabilities before deployment are that it is good, and it is a very good feature. I use adaptive sandbox analysis, and its impact on analyzing suspicious files is very great because it detects pretty much early.

I am using the enhanced reporting and audit visibility features, and they have helped meet our audit requirements as it has given us a great requirement study and plus it has also helped in ISO audit requirement as well. I would assess the effectiveness of the solution in blocking or sanitizing content based on policy as good and pretty much effective.

My advice to others looking into using MetaDefender is that if you are looking ahead at a solution which can be implemented quickly and at a lesser cost, go ahead with it. I would rate this product an eight overall.

The use cases for MetaDefender involve checking an endpoint, such as a laptop or USB, to ensure that they are safe, clean, and meet security policy before they connect to the network. I can use it for malware and unknown devices' security status.

The best feature of MetaDefender is that it can isolate USB devices from the connected network, blocks malware and unsafe files, and ensures all endpoints follow security policy, so that my organization remains safe and reduces the risk of these threats.

I find MetaDefender effective when it comes to blocking or sanitizing content based on the policies in place because it removes hidden threats and scans devices and endpoints, protecting the environment against unknown and advanced attacks.

The integration of Multi-Scanning and Content Disarm and Reconstruction affects my data security operations positively as it is easy to integrate into my environment.

I find the multi-scanning mechanism and content disarm and reconstruction features beneficial for data security, as MetaDefender's endpoint creates a secure layer to protect my organization from threats and attacks.

The main benefits that MetaDefender brings include isolating USB devices from attacks, removing hidden threats such as malware and malicious attacks, and protecting against unknown and advanced attacks.

My impression of the detection rates provided by MetaScan Multi-Scanning is that they are good, as the scanning of MetaDefender removes hidden threats, detects known issues, and protects devices from unknown malware and attacks.

I assess the effectiveness of Deep CDR in reconstructing files safely without signatures. CDR used in MetaDefender effectively removes dangerous and unsafe attacks by taking a file, removing risky parts, and delivering a clean version to the user, as it removes scripts, hidden links, and malicious components.

I use Adaptive Sandbox Analysis and a sandbox to detect advanced threats, as it receives files, runs them in a VM environment, and discovers the behavior of these files, allowing safe files to return while blocking any that behave poorly.

I find that the features of MetaDefender are strong, and its work is effective for scanning and securing the environment from malware and operates well.

I am not using the expanded file type and archive coverage feature because I was unaware of it.

I am not using the enhanced reporting and audit visibility features, and I am unsure about them.

Regarding the reporting, analytics, and audit visibility, I cannot provide a comprehensive answer. I do not know if the audit requirements help me with deep enhanced reporting and audit visibility in MetaDefender.

I have not noticed any improvements in workflow automation with recent enhancements to policy orchestration and engine parallelization.

What I would like to see improved in MetaDefender includes reducing the high cost of the license, as the pricing is very high.

Functionality-wise, I find installation and setup very difficult, and I needed support to help me understand the setup of MetaDefender. The process requires good planning and understanding of the environment to configure it, as the integration with policies takes more time to build and requires more experience.

I have been using MetaDefender for one year.

When it comes to stability, I find it stable as it maintains good external stability with good availability and no major issues. The setup is difficult, but generally, the product stability is good.

I find it scalable, as more users can work smoothly without any crashing or slowing down.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as good, as they respond in a timely manner.

Before MetaDefender, I used EDR, which is the product that I used before switching to MetaDefender.

The deployment process was difficult; I needed a vendor to help me because the setup of MetaDefender is complex.

SIS helped me to deploy MetaDefender.

I believe it is worth the money, as it brings time-saving, cost-saving, and efficiency improvements, especially in large environments. However, in smaller environments, it incurs high costs. Overall, it is good because it has many features for scanning and cleaning the environment from malware and saves time.

I do not find it cost-effective, as the costing is high.

I decided to switch to MetaDefender because Kaspersky could only detect malware but not take action, whereas MetaDefender detects and prevents threats simultaneously.

I chose MetaDefender because it is capable of adding multi-layered security that prevents threat detection and removes unknown threats, working without signature-based detection, which is beneficial.

I recommend MetaDefender to others because it is effective, has high stability, and is beneficial for environments. I have rated this review a ten out of ten.

Our use case is for threat protection.

I appreciate the unique features of MetaDefender since it uses multiple scanning in a single engine. The scanning capability, which combines different antivirus and scanning engines integrated into a single engine by OPSWAT, is particularly valuable.

The integration of multi-scanning and Content Disarm and Reconstruction is truly helpful because we can utilize it in other products such as email integration with ICAP capability, and we are also using it in web scanning. The integration is flexible and perfect for our needs.

We are not yet using the expanded file type and archive coverage feature.

Enhanced reporting and audit capabilities are not fully utilized. We use only the simple reporting features, such as viewing viruses that were scanned and found, and how they were removed and disinfected.

At this time, I cannot determine specific areas where MetaDefender should improve because it is already nearly perfect.

We have been using this solution for two years.

I can rate the stability at 10.

One hundred users use the solution.

The technical support can be rated at 9.5 from one to 10, with 10 being the best.

Comparing MetaDefender with other antivirus vendors, it is not comparable because of the unique features of using multiple scanning, which I cannot see in other products.

The engine requires constant updates for analysis purposes, which is why we need to maintain it regularly.

The detection rate of MetaDefender is 99.99 percent. It is truly effective because although we are not relying on signatures for scanning, we rely on the behavior of threats, and they are perfectly removed or we are perfectly protected from that scanning. Even though it is not signature-based and scans based on threat behavior, that approach is effective.

We are using adaptive sandbox analysis. Using sandbox analysis helps describe the impact on analyzing any suspicious files and extends the capabilities for how to disinfect or detect threats. It helps us detect zero-day attack threats, so we are protected from that.

The effectiveness of the solution in blocking or sanitizing any content based on our policies is excellent.

I would recommend this product to other users. It should be integrated with AI for enhancement. I would rate this review at 10.

The major use cases of MetaDefender in my work environment involve preventing malware updates, data breaches, and compliance violations through scanning files for malware, vulnerabilities, and sensitive data at the network perimeter.

The best features of MetaDefender include its ability to detect malware and vulnerabilities, which I also use at server levels, including production and testing servers, helping me identify and address vulnerabilities by applying patch updates.

When sanitizing files based on policies, MetaDefender processes and sanitizes files to remove hidden content, including embedded objects and scripts while preserving the visible content.

I use MetaDefender Archive Extractor, which supports over 30 archive file types, improving detection and preventing archive bombs, allowing administrators to perform archive handling once for each file type.

I would like to see improvements in the tool's automation capabilities. It would be beneficial if it could automatically create tickets and notify responsible teams about any identified vulnerabilities rather than relying on a manual process.

I want to see enhancements allowing for automatic ticket creation using APIs to streamline the workflow and assign tickets to respective teams.

I have been using MetaDefender for the last two years on my official laptop.

I do not have any stability issues with MetaDefender.

MetaDefender is scalable; it allows for automation in scaling resources as needed during peak times.

I would rate technical support as a nine out of ten.

I have evaluated other options available in the market, such as Microsoft and McAfee, but found MetaDefender to be distinct.

I decided to go with MetaDefender due to its architectural compatibility with the client's budget requirements, as its scanning and vulnerability detection capabilities are better than other tools.

For me, onboarding MetaDefender was not too difficult, being balanced between straightforward and complex.

I have seen measurable benefits, as MetaDefender saves time, preventing the need for manual processes associated with other tools.

The detection rates from MetaScan multi-scanning are managed mainly by other teams in alignment with our organization policy, where they can achieve detection rates of 81-87% with four engines or 95% with sixteen engines, and the comparison with Microsoft Defender often yields similar results.

I do not have an opinion on the effectiveness of Deep CDR in file reconstruction.

We have a process in place for identifying vulnerabilities before deployment where team members raise tickets on the ServiceNow portal for the respective teams to address.

I do not use Adaptive Sandbox analysis, as that is managed by another team.

I do not notice improvements in workflow automation as recent enhancements are managed by other teams; I am focused on using the tool to identify vulnerabilities.

I do not have an assessment of how multi-scanning and content disarm and reconstruction affect our data security operations.

I recommend implementing MetaDefender for its impressive features that maintain the health of the system. My overall review rating for MetaDefender is nine out of ten.

My main use case for MetaDefender is for our client's environment, which is using MetaDefender for their OT security or for their email side. All clients use MetaDefender, and it is especially great for Content Disarm and Reconstruction, which they want to leverage.

For example, one of our clients is using MetaDefender for their email gateway site as their mail gateways, scanning emails. Generally, they use MetaDefender's Content Disarm and Reconstruction property for that email scanning.

None of my customers are using the reporting and audit visibility features on MetaDefender platform.

Integrating multi-scanning and Content Disarm and Reconstruction positively affects my clients' data security operations, prioritizing security over potential delays experienced by end users.

The best features MetaDefender offers include its Content Disarm and Reconstruction, which is a key feature chosen by our clients because many other products claim to provide that functionality, but generally, they cannot do it as cleanly. Through Proof of Concept sessions with our clients and the OPSWAT team, they see that MetaDefender's Content Disarm and Reconstruction is strong, usable, and valuable for our customers, making them want to work with OPSWAT specifically for this feature.

For example, one of our customers was not using any Content Disarm and Reconstruction technology but was receiving emails containing PDF documents or XLSX documents, some with malicious content. MetaDefender's technology worked effectively, disarming and reconstructing PDFs to deliver clean copies to their users, while allowing their analysts to see the malicious code.

MetaDefender has positively impacted my clients' organizations by saving time for their SOC teams who were previously receiving false positives and unnecessary alarms from other products, allowing them to focus on analyzing real threats, which has led to fewer incidents.

For one of my clients, a major bank in Turkey, they reported saving approximately 30 percent of their SOC time on analyzing emails since implementing MetaDefender.

MetaScan multi-scanning feature is excellent because it provides multiple vendors for scanning. If one vendor fails, the others remain operational, ensuring continued protection.

Assessing the effectiveness of Deep Content Disarm and Reconstruction in reconstructing files safely and without signatures reveals it to be effective, as clients receive identical documents without changes other than the removal of malicious code.

MetaDefender's file-based vulnerability assessment analyzes binaries and installers for known vulnerabilities before they enter a network, providing a proactive defense that is highly valuable for our customers.

While MetaDefender's mail gateway already gives fewer false positives, there is still room for improvement in reducing those even further.

Additionally, MetaDefender could benefit from a better graphical user interface for administrators, making it more usable, although this is not an urgent need but an area for potential improvement.

I have been using MetaDefender for three years.

It was a fresh sell to our customers for MetaDefender, and I evaluated other options before choosing MetaDefender.

I have not seen a direct return on investment, but clients have noted that the product saves time and may reduce the need for fewer employees since the SOC team focuses on critical incidents as MetaDefender handles current analyses efficiently.

Pricing, setup costs, and licensing are handled by my sales team, but feedback indicates that our pricing is better than other vendor solutions.

I can specify that my clients considered other options before choosing MetaDefender.

I do not have anything else to add about how my clients use MetaDefender. My review rating for MetaDefender is ten out of ten.

Our use case is pretty wide. We wanted to scan every file uploaded by our customers to our application. For example, our customers upload ID data files to the application, and our application contacts the Core server via API and scans the files. We have about 15 external-facing applications where a customer or agent can upload a data file.

We have also integrated some of our network devices with the ICAP server for the same purposes.

And we are scanning some files on our file shares.

We sleep well now because we are assured that the files that are coming into our organization are scanned.

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.

Also, we don't have many false positives. When a file really is malicious, it is blocked. There is a really low false-positive ratio.

It just works. We don't use it for extreme use cases, and we didn't want to make extreme modifications because it works. We like that we don't need to put too much effort into operating the server. We just installed it, did a little bit of configuration and customization, and it just works.

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

We have been using the OPSWAT Core and ICAP servers for about two years.

I haven't experienced any instability with MetaDefender. We are running it in high availability. We have two MetaDefender Cores, each one in a different data center, and there is a load balancer. We set it up with high availability in mind. We haven't experienced any problems. The stability is a 10 out of 10.

I believe it is scalable, but I don't know how much it can be scaled. I would rate this aspect a nine out of 10 because I'm not sure. My rating is based on what I have read in the documentation.

We are planning to integrate this solution to scan files that are not only uploaded by customers, but also by third-party companies we are working with.

The support is good, really responsive. They usually respond within two hours or less, and we fix issues in about two days.

There is a guy there named Vlad. He is a great technician who has helped me many times when I had trouble with licenses or questions on how to do something differently. The support is great.

Positive

We were using ESET. It was like a homemade solution from five or 10 years ago and really hard to operate.

The implementation was straightforward. MetaDefender is quite easy to use. Installing it is very simple. The basic concepts are easy to understand.

We spent about two weeks implementing and configuring this. We wrote custom libraries with some scripts, and that's all. And it has been running for two years so far. We enabled automatic updates and it just works.

We have it deployed fully on-prem because we have sensitive data. We have it in two separate data centers. One is in Warsaw and the second is in Krakow.

There is no maintenance involved.

I deployed it with a member of my platform team and a network administrator.

We don't treat this like an investment that will return something.

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 bought three ICAP servers and three MetaDefender cores for three years, and that cost about 600,000 PLN (about $145,000). Support is included in the price, and the support is great. We didn't need any custom modifications or deployments.

It's not that MetaDefender has some super-unique features, because we also tested some other products. But its simplicity was the main factor in our choice of OPSWAT.

I would do a proof of concept because we are talking about cybersecurity. We ran tests for free for about three months. After our testing we were happy with the results.