Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Reviews

The stability has been good so far. 

If I compare its features to the other solutions in the market, it has some good features. It's comparable to others.

The solution can scale as needed. 

In India at least, it seems to be a bit more expensive than other options. 

I've just recently been introduced to the product. I haven't used it for very long. 

The stability has been fine. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability has been great. If you need to expand, you can.

I have never needed to contact technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

The pricing is a bit high for the Indian market.

We are a partner and we consult clients on security solutions. It's one of the solutions we take to our clients.

For companies that are Microsoft shops, I would recommend the product. It saves a lot of integration requirements as compared to other solutions. It's a good product that does what it says it will do. 

I would rate the product a seven out of ten. There are improvement opportunities in terms of the overall tech and commercial aspects of the product. It needs to be more competitive and technical. 

We are using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint with advanced threat production. Microsoft's enterprise mobility and security suite fulfills a large number of security strategy requirements for our organization. We are going to use this solution for identity production and for endpoint security.

It's a hybrid setup. The advanced threat protection only comes from the cloud intelligence engine. That's something of a new experience for us, but the rest of the components will be on-prem. We are using Microsoft's cloud. 

The whole suite of security enhancement doesn't just include Microsoft Defender. It also covers many of the features that come with the Windows Enterprise version. With this option, we are actually upgrading to the Enterprise version as well and unlocking those security features which are not available in Windows Professional. Microsoft Defender is a whole suite, which is simply not comparable with a usual anti-virus, anti-malware product.

In terms of the architecture of the management infrastructure, we found that other technologies are more simple. Microsoft Defender could be simpler too. Plus, Microsoft's philosophy is that they leverage the technology they have already built in Windows or any other services within Windows. So, it is good from that standpoint, but it also becomes a bit cumbersome when it comes to the dependency. Having dependency on many things can be a weakness sometimes because you add up more points of failure to the services. Whereas the other vendors are doing the limited thing, and that's why they're not comparable in prices, but their solutions basically aren't dependent on Microsoft's other services or anything else. They're more dependent on their agent. With Microsoft, it is not just the agent. It is the operating systems that aren't working well. The technology won't give you the desired output.

So, that's something that Microsoft may need to improve: making services more independent wherever possible. That's something of their philosophy. When they build something on their OS layer, they add on technologies, and then there's something for the ISV. That's their strategy, but we keep arguing with them that they have to compare the dependence as other vendors are doing.

From the Microsoft end, the design working depends on the health of other services and other components of the operating system. Whereas if you compare it with the Symantec technology, just the agent health has to be there. That's the case with McAfee as well. They build up their products on developed agents only.

We did the POC around 18 months ago, and then we consolidated our findings. As per the organization procedure, we proposed to the committee and then got the recommendation to move on with the pilot and decide the future roadmap.

Microsoft Defender is just one part of the advanced risk protection and advanced malware protection functionality that comes with the Microsoft product. It came with a lot of security, advisories, reviews, and consultancy during the last couple of years. There was a stack of 15-20 requirements that we had to fulfill, like mobile device management and identity protection. We found that Windows Defender meets most of our requirements.

We have had good experience with tech support so far.

We have a direct support agreement with Microsoft. One of the major reasons for moving from the current endpoint security is the support. The quality is not up to the mark. That's something incomparable with the kind of support Microsoft provides.

I would give Microsoft's support a 5 out of 5.

In terms of the technical aspect, I'm the lead of the area, which actually takes care of endpoint management, and we have been using Symantec products for that purpose. We have evaluated Microsoft Defender and Microsoft security products, and we are going to switch over to that product. We found that  because the endpoint devices are based on Microsoft Windows devices and Windows Defender is integrated with the foundation and the core layer, it makes it more integrated and more agile in terms of responding to any security threats or changes or development, whereas compared to the other vendors who develop anything on top of that platform, they're always lagging behind.

Symantec support is very pathetic. They are very methodical. They're very slow. We seldom find them providing solutions to any incident or issue in a reasonable time. It can take from days to weeks. In the case of Microsoft, their resolution time is reasonably faster than Symantec. Even in the case of VMware and Redhead, Microsoft stands on top of all those vendors.

I wouldn't say the setup is easier than other solutions but it's not bad. It's almost equivalent to what we have been using currently, but the strength comes in what it does and how it secures that part. The setup is similar to the other competitors. For Symantec, we use their endpoint manager deployment and then a deployment across the sites and branches.

We are doing deployment with Microsoft's tech support. But for the implementations and rollout of technologies, we have seldom used Microsoft. We have our own technical team who are trained and who keep on updating on their skills, and we continue to inject new resources to the team as well. When a new technology comes in, then we do a combo, whereby the in-house team actually learns with the local authorized partner.

Microsoft Defender is not comparable to a single endpoint security product, like Trend Micro, Symantec, or McAfee. Because of that, the price is higher than others because it is doing more than what the others are doing.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10.

The solution is primarily used for antivirus and malware protection.

It definitely improves the organization in terms of security and productivity. We integrate the Defender with the Microsoft Cloud platform as well. It provides us with sandboxing and other functionalities in real time, where we can have the protection we need. 

It's integrated with advanced threat analysis so we can see how the threat is coming into our network, what it is doing, and more. We can see everything step by step if a threat comes, including how this threat impacted the organization, et cetera.

The first thing which I noticed is that it is completely compatible with Windows. It does not make Windows slow, as compared to all of the third part antiviruses.

The stability has been good.

Technical support is helpful and they have a very robust online community as well.

The product can scale very well.

We would like more customization, actually. They're not too customizable. We'd like the flexibility to be able to set some applications on a white list. We need more options. 

I've used the solution for approximately five years. 

The solution is stable and responsive. 

We have the solution deployed to around 350 users across four different locations.

It can scale to the thousands and thousands. I have seen customers here, some have approximately 12,000 devices and they're running that one program and it's going far without any issues. 

Technical support is good. They know things about the solution. The best part is that if anything happens, the Microsoft community is so big that any problem comes up, you can also just Google it and you will get the solution.

We used McAfee and another solution as well and they both are great and amazing, however, they make PCs slow and every time something happens you have to call the vendor and they will help you support. The difference is, with Defender, it doesn't slow things done and you never have to call Microsoft.

The initial setup is very straightforward. IT is actually my default. We actually helped our end-users with system centers, integrated Defender updates, Defender itself, patching, and Defender configuration using the consent and configuration manager. It's simple. It's not complex to set it up or manage.

It's a bulk operation to set it up, therefore, even if you have 100 PCs, it will only take you about an hour and you will be up and running with everyone. You only need one to two percent of your staff to handle the deployment and maintenance tasks. 

We used an integrator during the initial setup. They were quite helpful. Our experience with them was good. 

We have seen an ROI.

The solution is free for end-users. 

While we have the solution set up on our private cloud, you can also use a hybrid setup if that's better for your organization. 

I would advise new users to connect it with an endpoint manager and connect it with the cloud and then let the real magic happen.

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint as an antivirus and antimalware solution. We also use it for endpoint management.

What I'd like included in the next release of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is more integration with different platforms.

We've been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for four years.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is stable, except for occasional internet connection issues, but it's stable.

We contact the technical support team for this solution whenever we have an issue, and once you open a ticket, they respond as quickly as possible, though it would still depend on the severity level that you define.

The initial setup for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint was straightforward. It wasn't complicated.

We pay for our Microsoft Defender for Endpoint subscription yearly.

We've been working with various Microsoft solutions, e.g. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Azure, etc.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has been awesome, so far.

I wasn't around during the setup of the solution, so I have no idea on how long setting it up took.

We have 6,000 end users of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint within the company, and it's being used on workstations, servers, and mobile devices.

I'm rating Microsoft Defender for Endpoint nine out of ten. I found it to be a good product. It's a fine product.

We use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for network and endpoint protection.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint could improve by making the reporting better.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for approximately three years.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is stable in my usage.

I have found Microsoft Defender for Endpoint to be scalable.

We have approximately 700 people using this solution and we plan to increase usage.

The technical support from Microsoft is very good. We are part of the Microsoft Suite, and from being part of this we have consistent news regarding Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

I have previously used ESET.

The initial setup of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint was straightforward. 

We have two engineers that do the implementation and maintenance of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has improved a lot over the years and it is a lot better now.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint an 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.

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.