Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Reviews

It's used to improve the security score for the whole system, even if it is the cloud or on-premises version.

The security is very useful.

Its stability is okay.

The solution can scale. 

Technical support has been great.

There's no setup process; a user simply needs to enable it to get started.

We'd like the stability to be better.

I've been using the solution for about two years. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and the performance is good.

The product can scale if a company needs it to.

There's a big number of users on the solution in our company. It's likely more than 400 users. 

We've dealt with support in the past and found them to be very helpful. We're quite satisfied with the level of service. 

I'm also familiar with Trend Micro, which is similar. However, Defender is specific to Microsoft.

The company does use more than one solution as well. 

There's not really an installation process. A user simply needs to enable it. That's all.

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

It is mainly utilized for telemetry collection and correlating specific behaviors or reactions to TTPs, IOCs, or indications of compromise. It is used for getting that level of detail. 

It is good for attack surface reduction, which is how you harden your endpoint so that they're less likely to be infiltrated or compromised if you have an operative in your environment. So, it's mainly used for reducing the opportunity for someone to compromise the system but also for rapid detection when that occurs.

Coming from an organization where the EDR wasn't strong, it has always been a case of basically searching through the information you already have and looking for something. It was basically trying to find the needle in a haystack. What the Defender platform does is that it reduces the size of the haystack, and it'll say that the needle is over here. Minutes matter, and it certainly zeros you in on the events that are concerning. It also simplifies the effort of trying to get some kind of correlation of behaviors or actions you see in the environment and confirming if something is benign or a threat.

Something that is unique to Microsoft is its licensing model. When you go out and you buy McAfee or Symantec, you know what you're getting out of the box, but with Microsoft, often, when you're looking to achieve a certain set of capabilities, those capabilities are spread across different products. You might try to do something you could do with CrowdStrike, but then find out that you also need to purchase Microsoft Defender for Identity or Microsoft Defender for Azure. You realize that when they talk about what they can offer within the Microsoft platform, it's really the suite of investments. So, sometimes, you may find yourself buying Defender for Endpoint thinking that it matches CrowdStrike, but then you find that Microsoft really needs to sell you something else. One plus one will equal three, but when you have a very concise platform, such as CrowdStrike, you know what you're going to get.

The other consideration is that because it's Windows native capability, your capabilities are largely influenced by what version of OS you're running. For a small-medium business, it is not a big deal, but at an enterprise scale, there are always Server 2000, Server 2003, Server 2008, Server 2012, Server 2016, Server 2019, and so on. So, you're talking about having six or seven different versions where your capabilities are not consistent between 2003 and 2019. It's like asking how robust was security in Windows 2000 versus Windows 2010. You'd say that they're not even the same OS from a security perspective, and that's crazy. When you buy CrowdStrike, you're deploying an agent, and so you get a fairly consistent set of capabilities that are agnostic to the OS version, whereas, with Microsoft, the capabilities are largely influenced by the OS version. For an enterprise, being up to date is a very big consideration to be successful with the platform. So, it forces your platform to not lag behind. You can't have the old server versions and expect that you've got a robust EDR. Defender shines on Server 2016 and higher, but if you were to do some type of penetration or red teaming exercise on a 2003 server, you'd be better off with CrowdStrike or pretty much anything else.

We've been piloting it for the last six months, and this is what we have selected to implement.

There are no scalability constraints because it's all in the cloud. It's a SaaS. So, they can take on more PCs than any Fortune 500 would even have. The only constraint is that in terms of scaling, the strength of the platform is highly influenced by the OS version. If you were largely using Windows XP and Server 2003, you would not want to choose Microsoft Defender as your suite.

It is fantastic, but sometimes, it could be challenging to navigate. If you buy something like a Carbon Black or a CrowdStrike, you normally have one sales rep and one sales engineer, and depending on the level of support you pay for, you may get premium or platinum support, which means you have a very concise escalation path. With Microsoft, there are 20 different account reps. There is a productivity suite guy. There is a security guy. There are so many different places, which can create some confusion at times, but there is no lack of resources. If you have an issue, there are so many Microsoft employees and reps who are engaged at the enterprise level that once you figure out who to speak to, you get traction pretty quick. So, in summary, because there are a lot more people, their support is really great, but sometimes, having a lot more people can also create confusion in terms of where to go.

It is easy. It is native. They're literally like checkboxes. There is really nothing to package and deploy. If you're at a current version, it is a policy. You just turn on the policy. You go through the setup of installing McAfee on your home computer with next, next, next, and finish, or Microsoft will say, "Hey, we noticed you don't have an AV. Do you want to enable Microsoft or Windows Defender?" You say yes, and you slide the box from off to on, and you're now protected. It is like that. It couldn't be easier. There are things like firewall rules and network considerations that have to happen, but from an enablement perspective, because it is native, it really reduces the burden of onboarding the platform.

We didn't go through a real comprehensive analysis when we made the selection. We did some light touching, but we really did not do some comprehensive analysis between Microsoft and CrowdStrike. 

At an enterprise level, a lot of the stuff is based on relationships. It's not like you're starting from a green field. You look at who is your strategic vendor and who is not. With Microsoft specifically, you always get bundle deals towards your renewals. It's always like if you buy more Office 365, we can give you a discount on Defender and things like that. If you don't have a relationship with CrowdStrike or someone else, it is hard for their rep to speak to your CEO or your CSO, but Microsoft does. They've already got standing monthly meetings with them. So, we've made a determination to go with Microsoft because:

1. The technology is compelling.
2. It is a strategic fit for us. 

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can be used for system protection. For example, anti-virus, malware, and EDR.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is that it is embedded into the Windows system. Additionally, the performance is good and simple to maintain.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is secure but when it comes to security all solutions could improve security.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for a couple of years.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has been stable in our usage.

We have more than 5,000 users using this solution.

We are quite satisfied with the support.

We use many solutions in our company, such as Panda, Trend Micro, McAfee, Microsoft, and FireEye.

There is no installation required.

We have a five-person technical team that supports this solution.

The solutions price could be cheaper.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint an eight out of ten.

We have a dedicated team that handles all security-related aspects of the solution, however, my understanding is that the solution helps guard the endpoints in our organization. 

Along with security, there are certain IT policies in terms of accessibility of different sites, which are there in the organization. With everything put together, there haven't been any instances where I have seen any kind of issues such as malware or other malicious event getting through on my laptop. From that perspective, everything is fine. 

The patch updates and version updates are very good. Those happen on an automated basis whenever I'm connecting to the organization network, either through LAN or through the VPN. I never have to worry about anything being out-of-date.

The solution scales well.

I have found the stability to be good.

From a general user perspective, I don't see any further improvements needed. 

The price, in general, could always be a little bit cheaper.

I've used the solution for two years or so. It's not much more than that.

The stability of the product is good. I have not dealt with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is good. It's reliable. 

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can.

We have 1,000 to 2,000 people on the solution currently.

I've never directly dealt with technical support for issues related to Defender. Many years ago I had reached out to Microsoft support for an issue related to Visio, a different product.

The initial setup is straightforward. There are certain automatic patches as well that keep on updating and those automatically install.

I don't recall how long the product took to deploy. When any new laptop or anything is assigned in an organization, all these things are installed prior to coming to us. Therefore, I wasn't actually a part of the installation process. 

We have a few contractors working with the in-house team. There may be around five to ten people. Any maintenance that is needed would be done by them.

The pricing could be lower. That said, I cannot speak to the exact costs involved as I do not directly deal with that aspect of the product. I'm unsure if the company is set up with a monthly or yearly subscription package. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. I've been very pleased with how it has worked for me over the last two years. 

I would recommend the solution to others, however, I'm just a passive end-users and not as technically involved as those deploying the solution in our company. However, from my perspective, there has never been an issue on my machine with malware and therefore it seems to be doing what it's designed to do.

The solution is used for endpoint detection and response, however, it also has vulnerability management. I don't use that as much as the endpoint detection and response. I use it in combination with Cloud App Security and Endpoint Manager.

The most valuable feature is the fact that, if you have the M365 E5, it's included and everything is in the bundle. 

It's a very solid security system and the advanced hunting and everything really lets you dive deep into things.

Overall, they're doing a much better job. However, recently, they added the Azure Defender. When you use the Azure Defender licenses, you're already enrolled. 

I prefer that they had the old interface that was not combined with compliance, and still, they've changed that to make it better. I would just like them to have more consistency, and that's a comment that's across the board with Microsoft. They change things a lot.

I probably started diving into Microsoft Defender about two years ago.

Stability-wise, I have not had another product that has been as stable and has had fewer issues. It's amazing.

The solution is scalable. For example, I helped a 12,000-person company put it in and automated it without any issue.

In terms of technical support, I have not had to call them related to anything on Defender for Endpoint. I'm a CSP, so I'm calling and I'm getting different assistance than, say, a home user. That said, at the same time, it really depends on if you're getting level one or level three support.

The initial setup is very straightforward. There's a lot of people putting it in that don't understand it, however. They're not using device groups and auto-remediation settings.

I do a lot of security reviews as well, and what I find is that, although it works well out of the box, there are missing components. Another thing is that people will basically use the product, and yet, not set up the integrations with Cloud App Security and Endpoint Manager. When they do that, they're not getting the full functionality of it. I, on the other hand, know the system, so I see people often having trouble with it. If people are trained or go through training, they would be able to get the full functionality out of it.

I can't give numbers, however, for the price, when you're increasing from an E3 to an E5 license, the amount of features you get eliminates a lot of other systems. Therefore, you do get a pretty good ROI. On top of that, you only have one management system and one reporting system. Overall, the numbers have been quite impressive.

I don't know the standalone costs. It is my understanding that the M365 E5 is $56 a month or something close to that pricing. That would be for the full suite. Just Defender might be $8 a month. I can't say for sure.

I'm a consultant. I primarily work with Microsoft and I do the threat management and check vulnerabilities on the database. I'm looking for something that is not super expensive yet covers vulnerability management and where you can pick the products, and pick alerts, and you get a weekly digest report, just so that we can better manage everything.

I work with pretty much all of the 365 products. I'm pretty widely experienced in Defender. I work for a managed service provider. I'm one of the people that's, besides having my Microsoft Azure architecture, Azure security, Microsoft 365 expert level, plus M365 security knowledge. I focus on Azure and M365 security.

For Microsoft Defender, the product is cloud-based, therefore it is managed and it's updated constantly.

I would advise users to take advantage of Microsoft integrations. I would suggest that they put it all together, so they can use it as a full bundle.

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

We use it for endpoint security.

When looking at the ecosystem as a whole, security-wise, Microsoft provides a complete solution with the E5 Security suite. Microsoft has a big advantage because Defender knows how to interact with the CASB and all the other security components that you have. Overall, that makes the management of the environment much easier. It's easier to understand what's going on, to become aware of risks, and to take action.

• Defender has very little impact on the end-user.
• The agent works quite well with a minimal impact on the client and server.
• It's very easy to deploy it.

We did a trial of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for about three months, and now we are in the process of rolling it out.

We have about 4,300 users of Defender and it took two days to have it fully deployed. With Cortex it took some time. With Cortex, we had some 500 clients that we had to investigate because for some reason they did not get the agent immediately and we had to do some tweaking to get it to all the end-users.

We used consultants for the deployment of both Cortex and Defender.

We gave Palo Alto Cortex XDR a try and we are now in the process of removing it and going to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. I have experience with both of them.

Cortex has quite good management capabilities that give IT organizations quite a good picture of attempted cyber attacks. It has good investigation capabilities, out-of-the-box, in case there is an event that you'd like to investigate. It's quite convenient. Microsoft has those capabilities as well, but you need a bit more training on the product to get the basic information that you can get out-of-the-box with Cortex.

The onboarding process with Defender is much easier. In two days we were able to deploy it to our whole organization. Cortex is much more cumbersome. But the onboarding process is not the issue. A more important difference is that once you have security risks that you would like to mitigate, Cortex more easily gives you information regarding the threats. Microsoft gives you exactly the same information, but you have to know how to dig a bit more and do some manual steps that, with Cortex, are more straightforward.

The main issue that we had with Cortex, and the reason we decided to roll back and go to Defender, is that Cortex has a horrible impact on the performance of the system. For an enterprise-level organization, it kills the system. Users were complaining that when moving between emails in Outlook it would take a lot of time, creating a lot of delays and timeouts. Web browsing and every action on their computers took much more time than usual with Cortex.

I would rate Defender a nine out of 10, while Cortex XDR is a five out of 10.

We are using it as the antivirus as well as the malware protection.

We have not had any attacks, in terms of viruses, worms, or ransomware, in the last three years.

The impact of the solution has been minimal. Employees can work with any interruptions.

The folders and files protection are its most valuable features. These have been valuable because of the increase in ransomware attacks. With these two features, I can ensure that no changes have been made to our system or endpoint folders and files without the user being aware.

I wish they would extend the use of the Security Central portal, even for the free option of Defender. Because, as companies grow, it is labor intensive to manage the AV and detection part of it. For companies already subscribed to Office 365, I think this would be a good enhancement.

I have been using it for three years.

It is quite stable. We have not had any cases, i.e., viruses, that would require a reboot, etc. We have never had a situation where we needed to reinstall the tools as a result of the Defender application or a feature being corrupt.

Four IT support technicians are responsible for administrating Microsoft Defender in our organization. They make sure that upgrades and updates are done in a good timeframe.

Its scalability is good enough. As long as you deploy the OS, you will keep on deploying Microsoft Defender automatically. This is a good option.

We have about 375 endpoints.

I have never used their support.

Before Microsoft Defender, we were using Bitdefender. Before Bitdefender, we were using McAfee Symantec.

We switched to Microsoft Defender because there was a change of ownership for the company in 2017.

We went for Microsoft Defender once we were informed that it would be part of our Office 365 package. So, we combined the licensing for the OS with Office 365. Yeah. We thought it was a good bargain.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The deployment takes a maximum of half an hour.

We have seen ROI. Most of the other competing alternatives will cost up to around $30 per user device. We average 400 devices. Therefore, the amount that we save each year is 400 times $30.

We have been using the free version.

Microsoft Defender is good enough as long as you ensure the environment is well-patched and secure, then even the free option will be sufficient to take care of the entire ground.

We are not looking to increase usage at the moment because of the underlying economic situation.

I would rate this solution as nine out of 10.

Our clients use it for antivirus and anti-malware purposes.

It depends on the licensing. Most of the customers have got at least a 365 E3 license, and they can use most of the features of Windows 10 Defender. So, anyone who has got an enterprise license can start using those features. Some of the customers have got E5 licenses, and they can use all advanced features. Customers with E5 licenses use the advanced site protection (ATP) features and web content filtering without going via a proxy, which gives the benefit of replacing the proxy. They can get the benefit of MCAS and integration with Intune and the endpoint manager. It is a kind of single platform for all 365 technologies. It helps customers in managing everything through a unified portal.

Normally, we implement the attack surface reduction (ASR) rules and exploit protections. We also use Microsoft Defender Application Guard and ad blocker. Instead of using the application control list, we use the ad blocker at most of the places.

What I've heard from the customers is that the anti-malware engine is not up to date. So, sometimes, it may not detect such threats. I, however, haven't got any data to show for this.

Its licensing can be better. Currently, customers with the E3 license cannot use many features, and they would like those features to be available. With Windows 10 E5, Microsoft is phasing out all the functionality. They have also made a lot of changes recently where you can also buy add-ons for Defender ATP, but for Office 365, ADT, and other stuff, you still require E5 licensing. If they can improve its licensing, it would definitely be helpful in implementing the features from the security point of view. E5 definitely has more features from the security point of view.

I would like Microsoft to have some kind of direct integration for USB controls. They have GPO and other controls to control the access of the USB drives on devices, but if there is something that can be directly implemented into the portal, it would be good. There should be a way to control via a cloud portal or something like that in a dynamic way. USB control for data exfiltration would be a good feature to implement. Currently, there are ways to do it, but it involves too many different things. You have to implement it via GPOs and other stuff, and then you move or copy those big files via Defender ATP. If there is a simple way of implementing those features, it would be great.

We have been recommending Defender to customers for Windows 10 and helping them in implementing it for two years.

It is okay in terms of stability. I haven't seen any issues. Even if you go for a third-party vendor as your primary anti-malware software, you can get the benefit of Defender in a passive mode. 

I am an Azure engineer, and I work with an architect to design the solutions. I'm not a security person, and I don't know whether it catches all the new malware that comes into the IT world, and how quickly it gets updated because it is not my area of work as I'm not an SEC OP admin. I have read a few articles mentioning that the engine might only be 80% or 90% up to date. Obviously, no engine is 100% up to date, but it is still a little bit behind some of the third-party vendors. 

We haven't used their support much, but one of my colleagues has had some problems, and I think he didn't get good support from Microsoft. So, obviously, it depends on what kind of support engineer you have been assigned. Sometimes, it can be difficult. It is not only applicable to Defender; it could be with any of the products.

While implementing the ASR rules and other things, if you don't put it in the audit mode and don't do proper discovery, then it can definitely break lots of applications. You need to adhere to the implementation guidelines for ASR rules. So, proper analysis definitely needs to be done before implementing those rules because it can affect the business functionality.

Its deployment can take from few weeks to months depending on the size of the organization. In terms of the implementation strategy, we start with the pilot key users, and we deploy those policies. We also deploy ASR rules and other exploit protection rules in the audit mode, instead of directly enabling them. We then monitor the resources in terms of what can be blocked or what can get impacted by those rules. After that, we work with the users to implement it and see whether it breaks anything. If it breaks, then we look at the solutions. After we are happy with all those solutions and we know that enabling it won't break anything on a business side, we just roll it out.

Our clients are definitely seeing an ROI. Some of the clients have already got the licenses, and they can use lots of features of their Defender ATP. They are basically saving the cost of not going with a third-party solution.

Some of the clients who already had another third-party solution are also moving to Defender ATP because they already have the licenses, and they can save the cost on those. One of our clients is using ESET. They have the ESET standard version, so they are not getting any of the other features. They already have an E5 license to use all Defender ATP features. So, obviously, it would be beneficial for them to go with Defender ATP.

We did a little bit of comparison with Sophos. Sophos also offers cloud and network protection, but it would be an extra cost to buy it if you already have a license of Defender ATP. With Sophos, the USB features are a part of the cloud solution. So, you can configure USB restrictions and other things in the Sophos portal. With Defender, you will have to implement the USB security features via GPO or something else.

I would definitely recommend others to go with Defender ATP if they have got the licenses because it can give them a wide range of security controls. It is integrated with Office portals and Microsoft monitoring systems, so they get the sensors from different places. We haven't come across any security threats yet. From the point of view of its theory, implementation, and architecture, Defender ATP and other ATP integrations would definitely help customers in controlling their organization and implementing the best security rules and policies.

It hasn't affected the user experience much for our customers. Customers only see the notification pop up saying that Defender hasn't found anything and things like that.

I would rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint a seven out of 10.

We are using this product as part of our EDR solution, and we use it in conjunction with CrowdStrike. We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we deploy for our clients.

This product has features that improve our security posture including good vulnerability detection, maintaining endpoint devices, and unified management. The management feature allows us to manage all of our devices from a single location.

The advanced techniques used by Microsoft Defender are improving our user experience. Our users used to complain that they didn't need certain features, but this was because the legacy antivirus and other EDR solutions were hampering their usage. Nowadays, vulnerability detection is very effective and they are comfortable with the security, as well as the administration, giving them a better overall experience.

The most valuable feature is threat detection. We have been notified of viruses and threats of problems such as ransomware attacks.

The Cloud App Security features are useful.

We apply the DLP policies across a range of endpoints and it is very accurate when reporting vulnerabilities, including those in email attachments.

Microsoft Defender integrates well with Office 365.

Especially these days, with the COVID situation, this product helps us to better reach our users and solve problems. For example, we no longer need to ask them to bring in their laptop to check for and address issues. We can apply policy, automatically define rules, and remedy problems using the central management features. 

It would be helpful if they included XDR features, on top of the EDR functionality. It would improve the capabilities, as XDR solutions are doing better.

I have been working with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for almost a year, with the E5 licenses.

Stability-wise, it is responsive and I don't see any drawbacks. They have additional features that make it a little more robust.

Scalability-wise, considering the integration that they have, it's good. For example, it can be integrated with Azure Sentinel. We have two or three people who work with managing and deploying this product.

We deploy across Qatar and currently have about 68,000 endpoints protected with Defender. Our usage will increase based on the number of clients we have that buy the product. Ultimately, it depends on the licensing model.

Prior to working with Microsoft Defender, we used CrowdStrike and SentinelOne. We switched because these other products are standalone, and require that we install and maintain them manually. Microsoft Defender is unified and comes as part of Microsoft 365, which makes it easier to set up and manage.

The advantage that these other products have is the XDR features.

The initial setup is straightforward. We deploy this product using Microsoft Intune, which is very helpful. It took us one month to deploy approximately 5,000 users. We had a specific plan that we followed for the implementation. 

I completed the deployment.

This product offers cost-effective threat protection, which integrates with Office 365 and has unified endpoint management features.

We currently use the enterprise-level, E5 licensing scheme. It is a complete bundle that includes the Microsoft 365 products, the Zero Trust solution, and Microsoft Defender.

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. It means that you can monitor any threats, sign-in attempts, and other resources whether on the cloud or on-premises.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We combine Microsoft Defender with Advanced Threat Protection to manage, isolate, and scan our laptops and workstations for security threats. We have a dashboard that is embedded into Office 365 and it allows us to remotely scan for viruses and malware, so we don’t have to have the laptop present.

Using this product helps with device inventory. This is not an inventory solution, but it helps you take count of how many workstations you have, as well as what software is installed on each of them. It is important because any software installed on a workstation may be vulnerable to parts of the internet.

Microsoft Defender has features that have helped to add layers to our security posture. The most important of these features is visibility and the provision of detailed alerts. It correlates the data and using this information, I can identify a threat and see if any other workstation in the environment has been affected by it.

Using this product has not negatively affected our user experience. It is just like using Windows 10.

The GUI is very nice.

The reporting capabilities are fantastic.

In the future, I would like to have the ability to patch using this product. Specifically, in an enterprise environment, it would be very good if you could patch the workstations remotely.

The alerting is something that needs to be improved. Alerts need to be sent immediately because as it is now, you see some of them without delay and others arrive perhaps 30 minutes later, and it leaves important gaps in terms of information gathering.

I have been working with Microsoft Defender Antivirus since it first came out, at least seven or eight years ago.

With respect to the stability of the product line, Microsoft has many products that do almost the same thing. The question becomes which one you want to use. This is a good product but at the same time, after a while, you don't know if it is the next one that Microsoft is going to stop releasing because of other products that practically do the same thing.

Microsoft Defender is very scalable and there is a lot of room to expand and add extra layers. We have 2,500 endpoints and we plan to expand; however, we are thinking about using the Microsoft Endpoint Manager in place of it.

Once the decision is made to stay with this product or instead adopt Endpoint Manager, we will expand to cover 6,000 endpoints.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

Prior to Microsoft Defender, we tried quite a few different products from vendors such as Kaspersky and McAfee. One of the major reasons that we adopted Defender is because of the advantage that Microsoft owns the platform, Windows 10. As they have developed the operating system, it is believed that they understand how to guard it much better against a third party. An attacker has to learn a lot about Windows 10.

Another reason we selected Defender is the frequency of updates. Every other time that Windows is updated, Defender is updated. Again, this is because it is owned by Microsoft and exists on its platform.

We also use Microsoft ATP and we are currently looking at Microsoft Endpoint Manager.

The initial setup is straightforward. Basically, once you have the competency with the product, it is straightforward and there are no surprises. It is not rocket science.

This product is built into the Windows 10 image that we install. As you roll out Windows 10, it is already set up and pre-configured, so there is no additional work required.

We saw a return on our investment within the first two years.

If I quantify the effort used for the setup and compare it with the pricing of the previous solution, value for the money was realized during the second year.

We have an enterprise agreement so from my perspective, this is a product that ships with Windows and it is not priced standalone. It comes together with the other Microsoft products that we buy.

When we evaluated Kaspersky and McAfee, we found the scalability was better for Microsoft. You can do in-place upgrades of the endpoints with Defender but for the others, you would have to re-install the upgraded agents on the workstation. This takes a lot of time and it is not productive.

We are currently evaluating Microsoft Endpoint Manager by comparing the differences between it and Microsoft Defender. This is being done in advance of expanding our usage.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to first analyze their critical assets to have an understanding of what they are. Then, decide if they want a scalable solution. New threats are coming in every month and the way this is going, Microsoft is learning lessons from networks that have been compromised. With this information, they give updates and patches to everybody. In support of this product, you have to consider the patching, consider the visibility that it gives, and then consider the critical assets it is protecting.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.