Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Reviews

Our primary use case for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is desktop security.

Defender for Endpoint has improved our security posture by ensuring that malicious websites aren't accessed, thereby enhancing desktop and network security.

The visibility into our attack surface provided by Defender for Endpoint is good.

Defender for Endpoint has significantly reduced our SOC team's workload by automating threat detection and response, allowing them to focus on other critical projects. This increased efficiency has minimized security concerns and freed up several hours per week for the team.

We are primarily a Microsoft environment, but we also utilize a few Macs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint functions effectively across both platforms.

Web filtering is the most valuable feature of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint because it effectively maintains security for website access.

There is a need for improvement in reducing false positives. Defender flags vulnerabilities based on registry keys or temporary files that are not necessarily vulnerabilities. This creates a lot of false positives. There could also be better clarity in navigating through the GUI to identify and resolve vulnerabilities.

A disconnect exists between the subject-matter experts and Microsoft's Level One support teams, causing delays in issue resolution. Repeated interactions are necessary due to Level One's lack of tools and knowledge, hindering efficient problem-solving and negatively impacting our experience with Microsoft support.

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

Defender for Endpoint is a stable product with reliable uptime.

The support from Microsoft is somewhat lacking. The level-one support seems disconnected from subject matter experts, leading to back-and-forth delays in resolving issues.

Neutral

CrowdStrike's GUI is more user-friendly and provides easy-to-follow instructions, while Defender for Endpoint requires more effort to access detailed file information and vulnerability assessments. For instance, locating a specific device involves navigating through reported vulnerabilities, clicking on associated devices, and then searching for the device name to identify the vulnerabilities and their origins. The switch to Defender for Endpoint was likely motivated by cost savings and compliance requirements.

Defender for Endpoint is a good security product that provides a good return on investment.

I would rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint a seven out of ten. It has effectively improved our security posture, but there are areas where support and usability can be enhanced.

On-premises

Currently, I'm working to build out DLP policies in Defender for Endpoints.

Defender for Endpoint enables us to see vulnerabilities on certain endpoints and investigate the attack surface. We've improved our Security Score to the industry standard. The solution has reduced the mean time to remediation, but it's hard to give a precise number because it varies on a case-to-case basis. Automatic remediation of certain vulnerabilities has allowed our SOC to work on other projects. 

Attack surface reduction and limiting attack surface vectors are valuable features. It's helpful to isolate specific devices and get super granular with the features they offer. The visibility into the attack surface is good. It gets highly granular. I don't work on that side, but the people who do tell me they get more visibility. 

Defender for Endpoint is complex, and the documentation is detailed. At the same time, it's hard to navigate sometimes. You have to go through tons of documentation to find what you want.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for one and a half years.

The stability is great. I haven't seen any outages with Microsoft.

It's pretty easy to scale with Microsoft, as they make it easy if you look into the documentation.

I rate Microsoft support eight out of 10. Customer service has been pretty good. I don't have any complaints.

Positive

We've had E5 licensing for a while now, but our security stacks were spread across multiple resources, so we are currently consolidating.

I don't work much with the costs, but I have not heard of any issues with pricing, licensing, or setup costs for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

I rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint eight out of 10.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

We are a Microsoft-heavy organization, so we use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint because of its compatibility with our environment and its reports, which provide good visibility into our environment and send telemetry logs to the server.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint collects all system logs, activity logs, and threats. It then sends this data to the Office 365 security portal, where we can view all logs and use various analytics tools to forecast average bandwidth usage, identify programs used by users, and view which apps are running in our environment, including unauthorized apps. All of these insights are easily accessible if we have a complete Microsoft solution.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint helps us prioritize threats across our enterprise. We have configured the standard settings and are using many Microsoft solutions, so we receive direct support from Microsoft. We have created many policies, including a standard policy for all apps and programs used in our organization. We have a list of these programs, and any that are in the Defender for Endpoint exclusion list, such as DLP software or trusted software, are excluded so that they do not slow down the process. We then prioritize the apps according to standard cybersecurity priorities. For example, if an application is vulnerable and not from a renowned vendor, it should be blocked.

We have integrated Sentinel with Defender for Endpoint. The integration was a few simple clicks.

Our integrated solutions work together seamlessly to provide coordinated detection and response across our environment. We like Microsoft's Advanced Threat Protection solution, which uses EDR and AI to protect endpoints. Recently, a user downloaded an unknown file, and ATP immediately flagged it. ATP then ran an automatic investigation and provided us with the results in the portal. We can then decide whether to quarantine, delete, or report the file to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

Microsoft provides comprehensive security products that have fulfilled all of our security needs and assured us that we have enterprise-grade security and do not need any other solutions. We have received positive results.

We use the cloud's bidirectional synchronization capabilities to synchronize our on-premises Sentinel agents with the Azure Monitor agents.

It is our requirement to have bi-directional synchronization between the cloud and on-premises environments because we now have users in both locations. This means that if a user changes their password in the cloud, it will also be updated in the local Active Directory. Additionally, we have some on-premises servers that require our SQL databases in Azure, so they communicate with the cloud bi-directionally.

Microsoft Sentinel enables us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem. The whole point of Sentinel is to collect logs and notify us, showing us our cybersecurity posture and where we stand. It also advises us on the policies we define for our system and whether the system in our environment matches those policies, identifying any applications that are not fulfilling those policies.

Sentinel provides visibility into our environment and we can investigate and respond to threats through Defender.

In the context of user and entity behavior analytics, Sentinel is very effective. It can identify high- and low-risk users by analyzing their daily usage activities, such as the applications they access, the websites they visit, and how they handle data. Sentinel then segregates users into high-risk and low-risk groups based on this analysis. This gives us good visibility into user behavior, which is essential for protecting our organization. While Sentinel has other capabilities, we are currently using it for UEBA.

Microsoft security has helped us save about 30 hours per month, reducing our workload.

Microsoft security has helped us save costs. In our company, we have different Office 365 licenses, including E5, E3, and F5. Some of the security add-ins are free with these subscriptions. For example, the E5 license includes SIEM, Office 365, Defender for Endpoint, and an Active Directory P1 subscription. This means that we do not have to purchase these add-ins separately, as they are included in our licensing.

Defender for Endpoint has reduced our time to detect and respond. Once an incident has occurred the AI automatically takes action and provides us with a detailed report of the investigation. It takes five to ten minutes to resolve an incident.

To have full visibility, we must access multiple dashboards, which is a problem because they change frequently, with daily updates to naming conventions. A single dashboard would be a significant improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for seven months.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is extremely stable.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is easily scalable because it is compatible with a variety of Windows and Linux machines.

Technical support is good. We usually receive a response with a solution within 24 hours.

Neutral

We are currently evaluating CrowdStrike and a few other solutions.

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

Microsoft-heavy organizations should avoid using third-party SIEM solutions, as the compatibility issues would require significant effort from the IT department to configure them with Microsoft applications.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a detection system, not a prevention system. We receive alerts after a threat has occurred.

It is better to choose a single company security solution because it will free up time to focus on the environment and identify loopholes. Rather than using three or four third-party software programs, which would require us to spend more time learning about them and resolving compatibility issues, a single solution would provide a better view of the environment.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

We deploy the solution for our customers, typically with Plan 1, as they generally have E3 licenses. We also use Microsoft Purview, the compliance system consolidating every security aspect into its portal. This offers centralized management and tight integration with Azure and Intune, which are identity and device management tools, respectively.

Our customers have a variety of cloud providers; Azure and GCP are the most popular, but we have some AWS users too. 

We use multiple Microsoft security products, including Azure Information Protection and DLP, in addition to the other flavors of Defender, such as Defender for Cloud and Defender for Identity.  

We integrated all of these products and the integration was easy. 

These solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across our environment, which is essential. The beauty of Microsoft is the tight integration of their various products.  

The solution helps us prioritize threats across the enterprise, which is essential for every organization. If a malicious actor or another type of threat gets into the network, we need to know exactly what's happening, how it happened, who triggered it, lateral movement, etc.  

Defender for Endpoint is a 360° solution that sees and covers all areas. Microsoft also has a zero-day protection framework, so they are thinking ahead.

The product decreased our time to detect and respond to threats.

Defender for Endpoint provides good visibility into threats and has favorable threat intelligence. 

The product helps us automate routine tasks and the finding of high-value alerts; it discovers all threats and categorizes them as low, medium, or high priority, then begins remediation automatically based on the threat severity. It's also possible to automate the isolation from the production network of a device infected with ransomware. As always, the workflows and configurations should be optimized based on the environment.

The solution's threat intelligence helps us prepare for potential threats and take proactive steps before they hit. Some bots take care of remediation and an automatic ticketing system whereby open items trigger tickets sent to the team concerned.  

The solution has minimal customization options, especially compared to Mandiant, so we want to see more scope for customization. A single portal for customization would also be a welcome addition. 

A high level of expertise is required to maximize visibility into threats as the tool provides the data, but it isn't crystal clear. Other products are more straightforward and user-friendly, so admin and management-level staff can easily understand the root cause of a threat, which isn't the case with Microsoft. The threat detection and response are there, but significant expertise is required if we want the same level of visibility provided by third-party tools.

There are some issues around ingesting data from MS Sentinel. If we configure Purview, then our compliance is configured for our entire Microsoft tenant, but the integration isn't easy, and there are some known challenges.

We can't see all the data in one place, so we have to log into different portals to access various data, and this needs to be more straightforward. We want to see a single portal with one URL, so those with the appropriate credentials can gain access and see the big picture regarding the threat landscape.

We've been using the solution for over five years. 

The product is stable. 

Defender for Endpoint is scalable.

The deployment was relatively straightforward, but one issue is the knowledge base articles are not particularly accessible.

Regarding implementation strategy, we do discovery, make an assessment, and match with business needs; then, we know precisely what we have to do and which license is required. We can then start the implementation and deployment.

For maintenance, two team members are sufficient to manage 5,000 users or devices. 

We're a service provider, so we carry out the deployments ourselves. 

We have seen an ROI. 

I'm not too familiar with costs as I'm an architect, though I know about online pricing, as I help two teams with online purchasing and procurement. Nowadays, everyone has an enterprise agreement, such as an E3 license, which we provide to our customers.

The solution saved us money. 

We evaluated many solutions, including Mandiant, Cortex XDR, McAfee MVISION, and Fortinet FortiClient.

I rate the solution nine out of ten, and I recommend it.

We use Microsoft Sentinel, and it allows us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem.

Sentinel enables us to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place, which is important to us.  

Public Cloud

We want to find a solution that fits businesses of every size and type, but we primarily target small and medium-sized enterprises. 

Defender helps us prioritize threats across the organization. When we needed to update the patches on our endpoints, we could look at all the patches and see what still needed to be fixed. We could decide whether it's necessary to address something urgently or deploy it as part of routine monthly maintenance. It's crucial to have the insights and a report that I can show to an executive to demonstrate that we need to act fast. This is less common because most people accept your hotfixes and patches when they come out, especially monthly security updates. However, some older shops might be like, "I'm running Windows 10. No one's touching this." We still need to service and support those machines, too. 

The solution helps us automate routine tasks and alerts. There's a dashboard where I can see the statuses of my machines in the environment. It helps us breathe a little bit easier. We're responding to businesses that had shifting needs during COVID. How can we be more proactive and help them to be more proactive? We shifted from traditional PC antivirus software to stuff that's totally different. I can't say it's "set it and forget it" because that implies a lazy mentality. However, I know I have a level of protection that I can have faith in. 

Defender helps us be more proactive. I find value in the zero-day threats that get fixed from Microsoft bug fixes or security updates. I can read and research about those zero-day threats from Microsoft's public site without digging too deeply into the Defender side of things. 

We've saved some time with Defender for Endpoint because we were doing a lot of unnecessary remediation with the other products. We had a series of servers that our previous product was installed on. It would blue-screen the server at random, and you can't have that. I'm not worried about Defender impacting my system stability. We put a lot of high-performance systems out there, including PCs and backend compute. I want to ensure we won't be overburdened by unnecessary security software that may not be giving me the protection I want.

Defender's reporting saves us four hours to eight hours each month. It has many of the standard reports we need built in, so it's effortless to generate and pull from. The time we save in other areas isn't as easy to quantify. I don't have to worry about the stability of a box or a computer cluster. 

It has decreased my detection time. On Wednesday, I got emails notifying me that new vulnerabilities were detected. They weren't new, but they were newly disclosed because patches came out for them. It has enabled us to react much quicker. 

I like Defender's reporting and logging features. The email alerts are also helpful. It's hard sometimes to sift through the email, especially if you're an IT firm managing hundreds if not thousands of endpoints, but we find email reporting useful. For example, last Tuesday, we learned of new vulnerabilities that were discovered as a result of the previous patches. The endpoints without those patches triggered alerts in Defender.

Defender ties into the Microsoft 365 portal where many shops spend a lot of their time doing password resets or other tasks. There is much more in the Azure portal too, but the 365 portal has a list of open issues, bugs, and necessary remediation steps. If I'm working on my security score, I have all of those on an active list, which is nice.

Defender should be more accessible for small and medium-sized businesses. You have some organizations that maybe have a hundred employees, and they're focused on making their widgets. That's their nine-to-five every day. They're not thinking about that security side, but maybe they're already invested in 365 or the Azure ecosystem and having Defender as an add-on makes sense from a price perspective. It's easy to deploy, but it could be easier for some of those smaller businesses to onboard endpoints.

The onboarding and deployment could be more user-friendly, and there is room to grow in some of the reports. I don't want them to be oversimplified or overly complex, but there is room for improvement in the reporting it can do. It's relatively minor.

We have used Defender for Endpoint for the last 18 months or so. 

Defender's stability is one of the things I love most about the solution. 

There are no limitations on Defender's scalability. I get the impression that it's designed to cater to massive enterprises with 20,000 or more endpoints, but I think there's a market for a simpler deployment, like 100 PCs, 10 servers, etc. Give me a deployment option that's simple. 

I rate Microsoft support eight out of 10. It's good overall, but it can be hit or miss depending on your issue, and sometimes you don't get the right level or technician. All of my 2023 support experiences have been stellar, but 2022 was a little inconsistent. 

Positive

The company evaluated other solutions in parallel and in tandem with it. Our trajectory shifted slightly during COVID-19, so we explored that more. We tried ESET and SentinelOne for a while. But those are apples-to-oranges comparisons. Defender for Endpoint is geared toward common reporting,  notifications, and backend stuff, whereas SentinelOne is designed to lock machines down. It has many more tendrils deep within, so they're not great comparisons. 

We decided to go with Defender because we're pretty heavily invested in the rest of the Microsoft Stack, so it made sense. However, we wanted to do our due diligence because we're already using other products. We wanted to ensure we were picking the best of breed for our customers fair enough.

We were having issues with other products like ESET, SentinelOne, and Symantec. SentinelOne is just too deep and heavy. It's like trying to shoot a fence post with a missile. It was too much. We rely on the product and trust it. It takes a little while to get there, but once you trust a product, you can move on to the next thing and know you're protected.

The onboarding process could be more straightforward. I wish the onboarding were simpler. It seems a little more ethereal than, "Hey, here's your executable, put this on every machine." That would be easier for a small shop. We're still deploying into a lot of our sites. It didn't take long at all, but it takes a while to get fully ready to deploy, 

Defender's pricing is competitive. There are ways to negotiate a better price with Microsoft or your reseller as your business grows. You can say, "Hey, I bought 365 Business, then E3, and E5. Now, I'm buying Defender, so give me bulk pricing."  There are opportunities to save as you grow that wouldn't exist if you picked a different vendor.

I rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint eight out of 10. 

I'm a security coach with multiple clients. I provide security implementation, planning, and maintenance through Microsoft Defender. I use all the Defender products, including Defender for Identity, Defender for Office 365, and Defender for Cloud. 

It's easy to integrate the solutions. You only need to go into the settings and switch on the connectivity to all the Defender for Endpoint connectivity telemetry. Microsoft documentation is thorough, and it walks you through all the necessary steps.

We're multi-client and multi-cloud. We're working with multiple organizations and departments, so it's complex. We have domains and sub-domains that we must account for on the deployment side. We also use Defender for ATP, which is the Defender for domain controllers.

Defender for Endpoint helped to bridge the gap with remote workforce solutions because it protects managed and unmanaged devices. It's also easier to use because Defender for Endpoint is cloud-managed, so it stays maintained and updated. It has a leg up on competing solutions that require more system resources and maintenance. 

The tight integration with Microsoft operating systems is another advantage because it's easier to manage. It also goes beyond Windows OS. Defender for Endpoint supports other platforms and operating systems, such as Linux, iOS, and Android. I like that Microsoft is expanding the product's scope beyond Microsoft operating systems. Microsoft is developing a holistic approach, so you don't need a third-party product to protect these other non-Microsoft platforms.

Defender helps us to prioritize threats across the enterprise. The weighted priorities are based on all the MITRE security standards. Defender products work together to provide comprehensive protection. I agree with the placement of Defender Products on Gartner's Magic Quadrant. Defender is a leader in that area of threat protection. I'm pleased with the outcome of a lot of the investigations. I can protect and harden areas that didn't usually didn't have that level of visibility and granularity. 

Defender integrates with Sentinel, enabling me to ingest data from my entire ecosystem. Sentinel also covers non-Microsoft products with the third-party connectors that are provided. I enjoy that part of the Sentinel functionality and feature set. It has several features for aggregating the log data and analytics for the on-premises environment. Having that visibility is crucial.

Sentinel provides the SIEM and the SOAR capabilities, offering a single pane of glass for all of the security operations centers and providing on-site reliability for many of my clients. Sentinel is Microsoft's answer to competing tools such as Splunk and other log application tools. Sentinel seems to provide more added value from the ease of use and visibility. The licensing is also competitive.

You can set up Sentinel to forward alerts if you want to create a managed Cloud environment solution for Sentinel for a client. There's a way to set that up through Azure Front Door. You're seeing the data reporting and single pane of glass for other tenants and customers. It enables you to offer security as a service to maintain visibility for clients.

I like that it considers the status of a device (whether the device is online or offline, VPN or not, etc.) and provides several options for telemetry, depending on where and how the device is being used. It gives a lot of flexibility with the installations, maintenance, and management of the Endpoint solution. In addition to Defender for Endpoint's feature set, other parts of device management reduce the attack surface and protect those devices.

Defender's automation features have been a significant advantage with many of my clients because the remediation has been automated. Most of the time, it doesn't require any human intervention unless there's something that hasn't been set up. I must demonstrate the automated investigation and remediation to my clients to ensure their environment is automatically protected on weekends and after business hours.

The single pane of glass is vital to us as security consultants and our clients, who need a high level of visibility. You can go into the high-level executive dashboard view and drill into each telemetry graphic to provide you with more granular data. I see how easy it is to see the big picture and effortlessly drill into the details using the side navigation menus and more.

Consolidating things into one dashboard streamlined them significantly. When working with multiple tools and vendors, you typically have to stitch the reporting together to get an overarching view of everything. It's time-consuming. By the time some of these tasks are accomplished, the data starts to get stale, so you need to refresh and create an all-new view again. Having real-time capability in a single pane of glass is essential.

Defender Threat Intelligence helps us develop a forward-looking approach to threats and plans. That's one aspect of the product I find incredibly helpful. It will highlight things that may require intervention, such as turning on conditional access rules or setting up some geofencing for anything that looks like it could be a password spray attack from a known location that we can block. 

There are opportunities to turn off any legacy protocols that may be in use. That's been a common thread with some of my clients who still use legacy protocols for sign-in and authorizations. The ability to do that has been a considerable help proactively.

You don't know what you don't know until you know. The continual flow of real-time data and analytics from Defender products helps create a security roadmap and harden many areas. With improved visibility, we can build a better roadmap to harden those areas by prioritizing and doing things methodically. Previously, we were guessing what to do next or what would be most important based on an educated guess. Now, we have data to guide our security decisions.

Microsoft Defender has saved us hours and hours. It has probably paid for itself many times over. I would agree that it has saved a lot of time and money. I estimate it probably saved us the equivalent of two people working full-time. You typically have at least one person overseeing on-premise resources and another dedicated to cloud resources.

In my opinion, the most valuable aspects are the reporting analytics and integration with Sentinel. Defender does an excellent job of correlating the different entities that comprise threat analysis, analytics data, and log analytics. It helps to piece together investigations into any exploit or malicious activity within a specific tenant. AI and analytics tools are probably the most valuable components.

The bidirectional sync capabilities and off-app sanctioning of the SaaS applications are helpful. The identity security posture feature set provides investigation recommendations for risky users. The heat map for locations is also handy. Defender integrates with the AIP DLP for data governance and protection. I use all of that.

There's a need to have augmented workforce capability. You need to see the data streams for client work augmentation for the security operation center and act on the information. Having data in near real-time is essential to my organization and the work we do for our clients. The built-in SOAR, UEBA, and threat detection features are comprehensive.

It always helps to have onboarding wizards. Microsoft has done a lot of work in that area. I would like to see some more refinement in the wizards to allow more diverse use cases and scenarios that help us deploy Defender globally. In particular, I would like to see more deployments considering localization barriers and networks or devices common in various regions. 

Localization is always a challenge, especially with new products you typically want. Solutions are designed to be deployed where the most licenses are being consumed, such as in the United States. They focus on US products, devices, and networks. Specialized deployments for other countries would allow for a smoother experience in transition.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for about two and a half years.

It's pretty stable. I haven't had any reliability concerns with Defender, and there have not been too many complaints from users that have to have extensive reboots or any kind of performance impact. So I would say it's pretty stable.

Scalability is built into the product. It's a cloud-managed solution, so it's capable of scaling pretty quickly as needed. You don't have to unlock another key or do something else to scale the product. It's scalable by design.

I rate Microsoft support a seven out of ten. We've opened a few Microsoft tickets. For example, we've seen some discrepancies between Defender for Exchange Online and the reporting from Sentinel. We raised tickets to determine why Sentinel's logging data doesn't match what we see in Exchange Online.

It can be slow and tedious sometimes. Microsoft has different support level agreements. If you want prompter and higher-quality support, you typically need to pay for an Ultimate Support contract. If we compare that with other companies or organizations, Microsoft is probably on par with everyone else. You don't get a higher level of support unless you pay for it.

Neutral

I've worked with all the major antivirus and endpoint protection vendors, including Splunk, CrowdStrike, Sophos, Norton, and McAfee. Microsoft's advantage is its integration with the operating system, ease of deployment, and support for the 365 Cloud experience. It makes everything easier to deploy, maintain and manage. It comes down to cost and integration. We realize cost savings because it's integrated into the E5 licensing product.

The setup is straightforward and mostly automated. You only have to intervene when you experience errors. Those typically happen on non-US systems or in other countries. For the most part, it's effortless to deploy.

We try to use the auto-onboarding capabilities that come with Autopilot. If you have new systems deployed with Windows Autopilot onboarding capability, that's going to turn Defender on with the proper policies and security parameters. 

One person is enough to deploy Defender if you have a plan and proper communication. You notify everyone that the deployment is happening and push the button. You need to let everyone know if reboots are required and the like. Other than that, it's pretty much a one-person deployment job.

In terms of maintenance, Defender is probably somewhere in the middle. Microsoft maintains a lot of automated updates. There are feature sets that come into play with things that are put in preview and you may want to see if it's something you want to turn on and try out while it's in preview. Those are the only areas that require some discussion and intervention. Most of the maintenance is automated. At the same time, you also need to be trained and aware of the updates and feature sets as they mature. You must stay on top of changes to the UI, reporting, etc.  

If you look at what we pay on average and all the potential ransomware and malware threats we've averted, we've definitely saved tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the client. Some of the bigger clients have saved millions of dollars of potential ransomware payouts because Defender products helped protect those areas of attack. 

The cost is competitive and reasonable because most of the expense is log analytics, storage, and data consumption and ingestion. They can be throttled and controlled, so they are highly flexible. Defender has a lot of advantages over competing products.

From a licensing aspect, you're not just getting a security product. You're getting a lot of other capabilities that go beyond the Defender products. You get an E5 or E3 license and some form of Defender for Endpoint included with all the other security features of the other Defender products. 

It didn't take too long to decide on Microsoft because of the integration and simplicity. CrowdStrike is probably the closest competitor.

I rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint a nine out of ten. Defender is one of the best I've seen, and I'm not saying that as a Microsoft reseller. We use Defender and have gotten our Microsoft certifications to provide a high level of service for our clients. It's crucial to have a product we stand behind and believe in wholeheartedly. We're not getting kickbacks from Microsoft for saying or doing any of that. We use it because it works. 

I would say there's a trade-off. Once you start adding complexity to security, you're going against best practices that say simpler is better. Adding another vendor or a level of complexity is usually unnecessary. Unless there's something Microsoft completely missed, I would question the value of going to another vendor. 

Communication and planning are most important. Any time you change products or deploy something for the first time, you should test it first in a smaller use-case scenario. That will help you identify any issues with your network, firewall, or legacy applications that may be falsely identified as a threat. It's always best to test your use case scenarios in a proof of concept before you deploy it.

Hybrid Cloud

Our customers use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint to protect their hybrid environments. We onboard the hybrid environment to the Azure Security posture with proper Intune integration. This setup ensures that devices are protected and secured with anti-malware, antivirus, and other protective measures. We deploy this primarily in hybrid environments.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint provides a unified management interface allowing customers to manage their on-premises and hybrid infrastructures from a single pane. The integration with Intune enables control over devices like laptops, enhancing security. Automated Investigation and Remediation features are vital for advanced threat protection and beneficial for device protection. The ability to manage both devices and users efficiently is advantageous.

One area that needs improvement is the integration cost of logs with external solutions like Sentinel, which can be expensive. Additionally, Microsoft could allow storing logs locally within the Defender panel to reduce costs. It would also be beneficial if policies could be configured without relying on Microsoft Entra ID, allowing for better integration with local directories.

I have been working with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for three to four years.

Sometimes devices do not sync properly with the Endpoint. We often need to diagnose whether the issue lies with the Endpoint or the device. This can delay proper deployment.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is stable with no major issues reported. However, syncing of devices sometimes encounters problems, requiring us to investigate the root causes.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is scalable enough to handle various devices across environments, whether they are laptops, Android devices, or operating in hybrid environments. Customers mostly use it in hybrid setups.

The initial support process can be lacking as first-line support is sometimes not well-versed technically, resulting in repeated exchanges to finally engage a knowledgeable support person. This process is often slow and time-consuming.

Neutral

Setting up Microsoft Defender for Endpoint requires technical knowledge of Microsoft Entra ID and policy configurations. While it is not easy for all customers, skilled technical personnel can handle it without major issues.

The pricing of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is reasonable. It costs $15 per VM for the P2 plan, which is seen as affordable for customers. Additional add-ons are priced at $5.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a comprehensive and scalable solution for protecting on-premises and hybrid infrastructure. It provides strong protection and management capabilities. Customers are advised to use this solution for its robust features like advanced threat protection and easy integration with other Azure applications. I rate Defender for Endpoint nine out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

Microsoft Azure

We use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint to protect our work environment.

The endpoint provides good visibility into threats. However, working with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and its control panel can be challenging, especially when dealing with features such as compliance and cloud app security details. Nevertheless, with enough experience, it becomes a useful tool for threat detection. Although it may be difficult to work with initially, it is an essential instrument for information security.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint helps us prioritize threats across our enterprise.

The integration of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint with other Microsoft solutions is easy. The integrated Microsoft solutions work natively with each other.

The level of comprehensiveness provided by all of the integrated solutions is satisfactory.

Microsoft Sentinel allows us to investigate and respond to threats from one place.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint helps automate routine tasks and find high-value alerts. The solution has a powerful advanced query that we can schedule to run automatically.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint simplifies the use of multiple dashboards by providing a single XDR feature. This is a beneficial feature, but my reliance is on the 50 automated rules that run on a schedule to keep me informed of any incidents.

The automatic rules and policies that we apply using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint save us around four hours per day.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has saved our organization money by protecting the environment from threats.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has reduced our time to detect and respond to security threats by consolidating all relevant information in a single panel within a web portal. This enables us to quickly review and respond to potential threats, thus improving our ability to mitigate risks effectively.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has helped our organization by working to identify threats quickly before they become a problem. 

The integration with all variations of Microsoft Defender, for Endpoint, 365, and Cloud is valuable.

The time it takes to implement policies has room for improvement. When we create policies or configure file profiles and assign them to specific groups, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint will apply these rules accordingly. If we need to make changes to the policy, it can take up to thirty minutes or even two to three hours for the changes to take effect on Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. This waiting period can be a significant amount of time to implement changes. It is at times quicker to create new policies than to make changes to existing policies.

We are experiencing problems with certain Samsung Android mobile devices that have Microsoft Defender for Endpoint installed. Specifically, when attempting to log into the corporate profile, users are prompted multiple times to enter their credentials.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for two years.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is extremely stable.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is scalable.

The technical support team is professional.

Positive

We previously used a separate antivirus and endpoint solution called Cynet but it was not very useful. Our organization moved into the Cloud so we decided to use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

We deployed Microsoft Defender for Endpoint across multiple locations in our organization.

We evaluated Splunk and Microsoft 365 before the head of our company chose Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

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

No maintenance is required on our end for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a powerful tool and I recommend it.

Using a single vendor security suite carries inherent risks, but with a well-established company like Microsoft, those risks are significantly reduced, and it's more cost-effective than using multiple best-of-breed solutions to achieve the same level of security.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure