WatchGuard EPDR Reviews

WatchGuard EPDR is useful in large organizations with over 200 endpoints because the starting prices of the other tools in the market are higher for solutions like Trend Micro Worry-Free Business Security Services. WatchGuard EPDR offers a friendly user interface, which is very good for doing a lot of analysis and as a part of threat detection and response.

The zero-trust application service that WatchGuard EPDR runs is good. If there aren't any matches for a signature or a file, the solution will initially run them on a sandbox and determine if it is secure to run it in the environment. Ninety-nine percent of the time, it is done with AI, while only one percent of the time, it takes less than twenty-four hours for human intervention. You get a good experience with the tool, but sometimes it can be a bit stressful because the tool doesn't have the signatures to run it, making the product take twenty minutes instead of five minutes, but it is good.

The product's most valuable features are the zero-trust application service and its capability to detect threats and attacks.

The price of the product is not good for Latin America's market. The product is available at a very high price, making it an area where improvements are required.

I would like to see some of the extra models that are provided as add-ons, integrated with the technology, and provided to users as a standard tool. The add-ons provided by the product include areas like patch management and encryption. The integration capabilities provided by the product should include the other systems in the market and not just Windows-based systems on which WatchGuard EPDR presently focuses.

I have been using WatchGuard EPDR for three years. Earlier, it was known as Panda Adaptive Defense 360.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten. With WatchGuard EPDR, the problem is not with the endpoints but with the way that the endpoints communicate with the cloud console.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

I have experience with Trend Micro Worry-Free Services Suite and Acronis. My company migrates a lot of the users from Kaspersky to WatchGuard EPDR.

The product's initial setup phase is straightforward. As it is not a tool that is secure by default, there are some configurations required before the initial setup process is carried out. In general, you need to tweak the tool a little bit to make it more secure.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

With WatchGuard EPDR, I have seen a return on investment from the use of the product. After you deploy the product, it is really easy to go about the follow-up processes attached to the tool. You can also do huge implementations involving around 1,000 endpoints in a few hours instead of weeks, which is good. The problem with the price of the product stems from the fact that the market in Latin America is not used to paying a huge amount for an endpoint solution. Sometimes, users from the market in Latin America prefer to go for an endpoint solution that is not a complete product so that they can have a tool for their environment at a better price.

The product is available at a high price.

Against WatchGuard EPDR, I have evaluated Trend Micro, Acronis, and Check Point Harmony.

I would say that the product has been able to improve my organization's security posture by around 90 percent.

The product supports my company's remote workforce's security needs as it is really good for areas like URL filtering, and you can also match technologies like WatchGuard Passport with the DNS part in WatchGuard. You can also match the multi-factor authentication with WatchGuard AuthPoint. For the remote workforce, having DNS protection and protection against phishing, while also having protection for their credentials, reduces a lot of vulnerabilities for remote workers.

The zero-trust application service is the feature that I find to be the most effective for threat detection in the product.

Speaking about the capabilities of the product that have helped mitigate threats, I can say that my company has dealt with some users who are affected by some threats, after which we have had to isolate them and prevent the expansion of the attack in their environment, while also stopping privilege escalation and lateral movement. My company could remediate the one endpoint of the user environment that got affected because of the attacks, after which nobody else in the company was affected. Sometimes, there are some services that receive RDP brute force, after which the endpoint detects it and blocks the access automatically without any human intervention.

To those planning to use the product, I would say that they need to go with a trusted partner who has experience and is certified to deal with WatchGuard EPDR because such partners can provide an effective implementation process to users.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the overall tool a ten out of ten.

We have around 350 endpoints protected with EPDR, and it's been working well so far. We run EPDR with patch management. We can check for vulnerabilities in their applications, patch their OS, and patch all of their applications remotely from our WatchGuard cloud dashboard.

The way it quickly applies configurations to our endpoints is genuinely amazing. For example, if we have a web filter configured and need access to a site that the filter is blocking, a customer calls us, and we can add it. Within five seconds, everybody has a connection to it. Also, the intrusion information, such as the Mitra Tech database, helps us measure the attack surface, pinpoint where the attack is happening, or identify the stage of intrusion within the network or device. It's beneficial. For instance, we could monitor lateral movements of intrusions inside a customer's network. Just about a month ago, we had a case where a customer with 80 devices detected that a kiosk had malware installed. They were using it as a satellite device within the network. We were able to identify and neutralize the threat promptly.

The solution could improve when the solution keeps adding more new functions. Every three months, they launch something new on it. You should activate all features that you need to activate and work with the same client. You don't need to install a different client for something. For example, it's the same client if you have EPP and want to move into EPDR. You activate the license, and it turns into an EPDR.

The solution could have improved availability. When I send a notification, it neutralizes immediately. However, this delay doesn't mean it fails to perform on time. Their notifications arrive a bit later.

I have been using WatchGuard EPDR as a partner for five years.

If we compare Kaspersky and WatchGuard, both are effective and operate at a similar level of efficiency. For instance, they promptly detect and neutralize threats. However, Kaspersky's notification system is more effective than WatchGuard's. With Kaspersky, we receive immediate notifications when something is neutralized. Conversely, with WatchGuard, although it neutralizes threats promptly, the corresponding notification arrives via email approximately ten to fifteen minutes later.

Kaspersky has reasonable pricing; it's affordable for customers. The best thing is when it works together with XDR and the Firebox unit, and everything is connected to the cloud. That's something that stands out among other solutions. It's an integrated solution with Fireboxes, and you can also integrate Endpoint. For example, if you want to log on to Windows or connect to a VPN using the Firebox SSL VPN client to access your corporate network, you must install an EPR solution for Zero Trust security. Without it, you cannot connect.

The product has a balanced pricing. It's best when we offer our quotes to our customers, especially when competing against other brands. Our prices on EPDR are unbeatable; no one can match them.

I rate the product’s pricing a five out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

When we deploy your free solutions, we initially face a risk of around 60% of potential attacks, breaches, and infections as we install the first customers. However, as time progresses, this risk gradually decreases. It may diminish to zero or perhaps one to three percent because we actively patch vulnerabilities, detect threats, and ensure the security of their operating systems. After a few days, everything will work perfectly, beginning from an up-to-date standpoint.

I would recommend it above other solutions, including Kaspersky, with whom we have had a longstanding relationship. What sets WatchGuard apart is its exceptional ability to connect and integrate with various solutions within its stack seamlessly. This includes connectivity with firewalls, EPR, MSA, DNS security, and other offerings, all accessible through a unified interface.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We use Adaptive Defense for sandboxing, GDPR compliance, and antivirus. We also use it to inventory software and services on our computers. Our company has around 90 licenses. Everyone in the company uses it.

Adaptive Defense is pretty easy to use, and Panda support is excellent. 

Their MacOS support isn't that good.

We've used Adaptive Defense for around 10 years.

I rate Adaptive Defense 10 out of 10 for stability. There are some minor problems when we update Windows to a new version, but it's pretty stable overall. 

I rate Adaptive Defense 10 out of 10 for scalability. 

I rate Panda support nine out of 10. It used to be a 10, but support is a little more difficult since they were bought by WatchGuard because they're a bigger company. 

I rate Panda Security Adaptive Defense 10 out of 10 for ease of setup. It's very straightforward. Deploying the solution on each new computer and server takes about 10 minutes. One person is enough to deploy it. 

You have to do some configuration, and Panda helped us with that. They dispatched some people on site, so it wasn't a problem at all.

I rate Adaptive Defense five out of 10 for affordability. It's average. There aren't any additional costs, but the product is divided into a few different modules. We have licenses for the full suite of products. 

We used others before Panda, and also evaluated some other stuff, but we haven't found anything better so far.

I rate Panda Security Adaptive Defense nine out of 10. There's always room for improvement.

We are using Panda Security Adaptive Defense as endpoint protection on our computers. It operates similarly to a legacy antivirus service. It does not cover all aspects of security.

The most valuable feature of Panda Security Adaptive Defense is we don't have to have dedicated infrastructure on-premise because it is cloud-based.

I have been using Panda Security Adaptive Defense for approximately two years.

Panda Security Adaptive Defense is stable. However, when updates are being done on the computers we can experience some troubles because the computers need to be restarted. When we start the computers they are not functioning correctly and we have not received proper feedback regarding this random issue.

The scalability of Panda Security Adaptive Defense is good.

We have approximately 900 users using this solution. Everyone in my company is using it. Many departments are using the solution, such as marketing, customer service, IT, quality control, legal, or logistics.

The support from Panda Security Adaptive Defense could improve. They are not the most efficient.

I rate the support a two out of five.

Neutral

We previously used Symantec, McAfee, and Kaspersky. We switched to Panda Security Adaptive Defense from Symantec and McAfee because we were not happy with the administration of the solutions. Kaspersky was an okay solution, but they were not proposing the same cloud-based approach as Panda Security Adaptive Defense.

The deployment of Panda Security Adaptive Defense is easy and convenient. It is simple to administrate.

The solution is priced well for what features it provides.

We have one person who does the maintenance of the solution. We do not have anything on-premise to maintain, but there is some administration that has to be done, such as configuration.

I would recommend this solution to others. They are not the most advanced in terms of detection and artificial intelligence and user behavior. However, it is not the best solution on the market, but it is priced well for the features it provides. 

I rate Panda Security Adaptive Defense a seven out of ten.

We use it for our endpoint security solution for 1,000 machines worldwide. We're one of the largest machine shops in the world. In just one building, I've got over 500 machines in there. Some of them are old and come from the World War II era. Some of my machines, like my laser hole poppers, are still running Windows 3.1. I've got a lot of older lathes and mills that are running Windows 95 and Windows 98.

It hasn't improved our company in any way. Panda is the most painful endpoint solution I've ever had to work with except SentinelOne. With Panda, if the protection is turned off or there is a problem on a machine, you have to access that machine remotely to fix it. You can't fix it via the console. I'm the network admin and security admin at my company I don't have the bandwidth to babysit an endpoint solution. 

It prevents our users from circumventing security. Everything is password protected so they can't get into it. They can't uninstall it. They can't do anything. 

It needs improvements in its EDR and its ability to manage all the nodes. I'd like better communication between the console and the nodes, so I don't have to remote into each individual machine that's having an issue with the protection. The console's intended purpose is to manage and I've got half the management capabilities in their console. I've got almost 1,000 machines worldwide. As one person, I don't have the capacity to take care of this.

We adopted this one about three years ago.

It's good for all platforms— iOS, Windows, Android, Linux—so its scalability is there.

Technical support has always been top-notch when you can get through. Sometimes you're on hold for up to an hour, but their technical support has always been able to address the issue and get it resolved within 48 hours.

Prior to Panda, we had SentinelOne. Panda is a lot less work than SentinelOne in our environment. We still use a lot of Excel macros. We've got applications that we created ourselves and are unsigned. We work with machines with extremely old operating systems, and these things run off of applications that we have built in-house. SentinelOne wanted to shut down the applications so that the machines couldn't connect. It was costing us money. I can't give SentinelOne a bad review just because of our environment. Our environment is very unique, so it's not fair to SentinelOne. But at the same time, we just weren't made for each other. 

The setup is pretty easy. Deployment takes less than an hour. It's typically connected to the console, so it has already downloaded the latest and greatest updates or file hashes. Creating groups and policies for those groups can be a little complex but once you've got all that figured out, then you're good. The console needs a lot of help. Even downloading the installer for a new deployment on a PC is not very straightforward. 

I have an in-house team. I've got two help desk guys that I've had to train to use the Panda tenant. I don't even know if they're doing it anymore — touching every machine that has a problem with the protection.

I don't think Panda's license is too expensive, but they're charging more than it's worth. It's a yearly license. For 1,000 endpoints, it's around $18,000. 

We're considering switching to something else. Right now we're looking at ESET Endpoint Security and Trend Micro Apex One. Panda's EDR is rudimentary, so we're looking to upgrade because our insurance policy is asking us to find something better. Right now, we're leaning toward Trend because they're telling me that I can do everything from the console with their solution. That was the biggest pain with Panda.  

I'd rate Panda five out of 10. I give it that high just because it does work to some extent and it's cost-effective. My attitude toward Panda is 50/50. I get probably 10 or 15 emails a day complaining that machines lack protection. But if the console can detect the machine and knows that it's lacking protection, then my logic says, "Update it." But for whatever reason, I have to manually do it again. It's painful. It shouldn't be as expensive as it is. And I think it's going to be a lot more expensive now that WatchGuard owns it. Hopefully, they make a lot of good changes, but I've had enough with Panda.

Another thing to note about Panda is that I haven't seen anything in the documentation about compliance with GDPR regulations. I've got 11 locations in Europe, and we're going to have a GDPR tenant for the most stringent country or area. So even being in the US, I'll have to abide by European GDPR here in the US for all the locations to share one tenant. Otherwise, we'd have to have multiple tenants, which will cost us more money and be more of a hassle to manage. 

Before you install it, do a 90-day proof of concept. Thirty days is too short. You need to see the failing endpoints and what you have to do to fix it.

Our primary use case for Panda Security Adaptive Defense is evaluation. 

I like the Panda Security Adaptive Defense cloud usages. Everything is on a single plane of glass like the dashboards. I also like the information I can get about the computers itself.

Our customers like the solution. 

Panda Security Adaptive Defense claims that it uninstalls any third-party antivirus that was previously on your computer, but that has not been the case. Our customers often have to find some way of uninstalling it on each machine. So Panda didn't really get rid of the old antiviruses.

Panda Security Adaptive Defense has something called third-party patch management. One of our customers was asking if we could do remote desktop usage of PCs. It would be nice if Panda Security Adaptive Defense could come out with remote desktop usage.

I have been using Panda Security Adaptive Defense for less than a year. 

The technical support is good. 

The initial setup is straightforward. How long deployment takes depends on the customer. Smaller deployments can take as little as a day while bigger ones take about a week. 

The advice I would give to others looking into implementing Panda Security Adaptive Defense is just to get more information. I think we need a little more competitive analysis info as to what the competitors out there are using. A comparison of Symantec, BitDefender, and Panda would be useful for many customers. 

On a scale from one to 10, one being the worst and 10 being the best, I would give Panda Security Adaptive Defense a nine for overall performance.

My clients use Panda Adaptive Defense 360 for security purposes.

The most valuable part of Panda Adaptive Defense 360 is its overall effectiveness as a good and decent security solution. It provides comprehensive security which improves protection for devices significantly.

I have experience working with Panda Adaptive Defense 360 for between five and ten years.

I would rate the stability of Panda Adaptive Defense 360 as ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Panda Adaptive Defense 360 as ten out of ten.

I would rate the technical support as eight out of ten. Although not perfect, it is very good.

Positive

The initial setup of Panda Adaptive Defense 360 is rather straightforward.

It is not a direct cost saving or time saving solution. However, as a security solution, it saves time and cost since the devices are secured.

The price of the solution is okay. It's all right.

Based on my experience, I would recommend Panda Adaptive Defense 360 to other people, as I do it every day. I rate this solution nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for security in order to prevent attacks. 

It is a very progressive and innovative software that does a good job of protecting the end user. 

It is easy to manage.

The product has very good protection.

We've never had an issue with it, however, if we do run into issues, they have a good hotline. We can talk directly to them.

It is stable.

The solution can scale.

I haven't thought about features we'd like improved. We're mostly happy with it. 

I'd like to integrate it into my main services. It would be helpful if there were more integration capabilities, although there are a few scripts that can help me manage it. 

I've used the solution since 2006. It was before they made Panda 360.

t is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

The solution is very scalable. There is not a problem in that sense. 

We have clients with up to 120 users. 

I'm not sure if the usage will be increased with existing clients, however, I will enroll new customers within the solution. 

Their support is good. They have a very responsive hotline. 

The initial setup is very easy. It's not a complex process. 

The deployment can be handled in-house. You just download the installation file. It's very easy. 

The licensing is either yearly or every three years.

I've been using the most up-to-date version. Many of my customers use the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I'd rate the product ten out of ten. It's an excellent product. 

We are using Panda as an endpoint production and security product.

What I like about it is the cloud console. It offers centralized management, and users can push the agents through one management machine. Other products require you to pay to have a separate premium for managing the endpoints with a central console, or it is a standalone product. With this one in the cloud, the cloud-based console comes as part of the suite.

They have different packages. At the moment, we have an implementation for Endpoint Protection and Systems Management.

The remote control we achieve is the most useful aspect. In the systems management component, which is a separate license, there's this remote control feature, and you have something called privacy mode, where you can remote to a certain user system. The user can approve it or reject the request, and every action is audited. 

It offers an easy initial setup. 

The solution is stable. 

We can scale the solution.

The pricing is decent. 

I'm still learning the product, so it is difficult to see what is lacking. At the moment, it suits our needs.  

They could have more reports. I'm not sure if they are already there. Currently, I'm on the console, and I don't see specific reports I could generate. For example, reporting related to the history of events that happened on a system, like a flashback report.

It could apply some sort of artificial intelligence based on the industry background as to what is a critical, medium, or low alert.

Technical support could be better. 

I've used the solution for around a year. 

The solution has been stable. There are no blue screens or hanging. It is reliable and works well.

Even the reporting shows that it's actually detecting malware and viruses or attacks. Anything of that sort, you will have visibility on. It's quite good, actually. I'd rate it eight out of ten. 

We have three clients we have done deployments for.

It can scale. 

It's all license based, so you can easily scale it up.

I'd rate the ability to scale eight out of ten. 

I've dealt with support in the past. Maybe it did not meet up as much as the marketing. Maybe there's room for improvement there. We are working with a distributor in this region. There's a channel partnership here, and you have to go through the distributor all the time. The support experience is not good.

It would be a good idea if the vendor shared more information with the integrators since integrators act as support to customers. They need to be easier to reach or they have to get better at disseminating information. 

Neutral

We were using ESET, and they charged extra for cloud protection, which I don't like. In contrast, that is already there in this.

The setup process is very simple and straightforward. 

As long as you have a common admin user across the computers in your network, it goes ahead and discovers everything, and you can assign one of the systems as a management system, and you can push the agent to all the systems. You don't have to go to each and every system to deploy the agent; that's really a pain. 

The console is managed from the cloud. It's deployed on the endpoint, which is the laptop of the user.

I'd rate the ease of deployment eight out of ten. 

We are system integrators and can easily set up the solution ourselves. 

The pricing is quite competitive. I'd rate the cost eight out of ten in terms of affordability. 

We're integrators and resellers. 

The solution does its job pretty well. We're in a region where there are a lot of ransomware attacks, and so far, we haven't had to deal with anything like that. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

It's quite easy to manage, which is a good thing. I've found it's got excellent web protection. It just adds a little bit more to the product, including antivirus, application, and white-listing, which is good.

It seems to be faring quite well.

It's pretty simple to set up.

So far, the solution has been stable enough. It does the job. 

The product can scale. 

It's got a pretty full feature set.

We do get the odd false positive when we're trying to install the software. They take a bit of time and a bit of input, which they shouldn't need to do.

We've had some issues with the setup; however, other than that, it works well. 

Nothing that really appears to be outstanding needs to be addressed.

We'd always enjoy it if they lowered the price. 

I've been using the solution for about eight months. 

The solution has been stable and reliable so far. There aren't bugs and glitches. Aside from some issues with a few false positives, it's great. I'd give it a rating of nine out of ten for stability. 

The solution can scale. It's just web-based, cloud-based, which makes it easy.  You can scale up to any site anywhere, anytime. 

 We have maybe ten people using the product right now. 

We've dealt with support and they've been good overall. 

Positive

We've used Trend Micro. 

They're both very, very good. I wouldn't put one above the other. 

Both of them are very, very stable products. The only thing with Trend is we get fewer false positives with Trend, which is good value. That said, the reporting is actually better for Panda.

The initial setup is pretty easy. It's the only thing that's not working as well as it should be.

The pricing is good. It's around the same as Trend Micro. 

We're looking at Webroot.

We do resell the product.

We are using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall. We're pretty happy with it. 

I would recommend the solution to others.