WatchGuard EPDR Reviews

We use Panda Security Adaptive Defense for antivirus.

The most valuable features of Panda Security Adaptive Defense are the useful hardware information it provides, light on resources, controllable from the console, remote scan functionality, and the blocking of a lot of URL malware.

Panda Security Adaptive Defense can improve by including the intrusion and prevention system not only on their most expensive platform. Additionally, it blocks software that is legitimate from users. They complain and then we have to manually unblock the software, by hash, or we receive a message. Some of the prevention features are not available and this might cause us to need a separate firewall or something to protect the company.

The reports from Panda Security Adaptive Defense could improve, they are very basic and not user-friendly.

I have been using Panda Security Adaptive Defense for approximately six months.

Panda Security Adaptive Defense is stable.

The scalability of Panda Security Adaptive Defense can be complicated. You can group departments or people by their needs, but I'm not very happy with this grouping, they are difficult to apply. For example, applying a policy to allow some software to be used by this group and by another group, it's a little more complicated to achieve.

We have approximately 80 people in my company using this solution.

We had an issue once where a PC didn't allow us to install the software. There was some conflict with the other antivirus that was set by default on the PC and it was not obvious it was running. That's why we couldn't install the antivirus.

I rate the support from Panda Security Adaptive Defense a three out of five.

We previously use Symantec Endpoint Protection but we needed more resources for it to run.

The initial setup of Panda Security Adaptive Defense is easy.

There is a license needed to use this solution and it is approximately $30 annually.

I would recommend this solution to others, they should try it out for the 30-day trial. If they are happy then they can purchase it later.

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

We primarily use the solution for end-point protection. We use it to protect against malware and vulnerabilities in software.

The solution allowed us to crack down on activations. 

Panda is a very good and important antivirus. It allows us to stop activation windows. Users can't activate anything as Panda will crack down on it. 

It's very easy to set up.

The solution has been quite stable. 

Panda should work to be a more important antiviral all over the world. They could do it if they implemented a task system. We have something similar in Kaspersky. Over the network, we can implement anything by the task over the endpoint software, rather than the antivirus. We have endpoint software, and, via this software, we can access the users' PC and install any software and resolve any problems, software problems, or operating system issues. Panda needs to have this capability.

They need to offer a clear dashboard so you can see everything everywhere all at once. 

While Panda is good, we need a more extensive product. It's not as scalable as we would like.

I've been using the solution for a year or less. 

It's a stable solution. We don't have any issues constantly needing to be resolved it just works. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

This solution can't scale how we like. We are looking for other potential options for the future. Configuring each application on the workstation itself it's a little bit confusing. Imagine having to do every workstation to configure the endpoint application on it. It's tiring to work. If we have 2,000 workstations, we need to go to each workstation to configure it and that's just too much.

We have about 25 users on it right now. We do not plan to increase usage. 

Technical support is good.

Neutral

I've worked with Kaspersky Antivirus Security Center 12 and it protects the software over the networks to protect the workstations from any attacks. Kaspersky is a good solution for medium and large businesses. The main difference is how you can solve issues over the workstations. It's easy in Kaspersky. Also, the reporting system in Kaspersky is better as it gives a view of your entire network and of your servers and the attacks from which users. They have a great reporting system in comparison to Panda.

This is a simple solution to set up. It's easy to implement, install and configure. We didn't have any issues with it and didn't find it to be difficult. 

I'd rate the initial setup 4.5 out of five. 

Pricing and licensing are not my responsibility. I can't speak to the exact cost.

While we have a Panda license key right now, once it expires we may move on to something else.

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

They have great technical support staff. 

I'd like them to offer a better way to scan the hardware to detect whether they are valid. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The technical support staff is well trained and very skillful, and I find them to be very supportive. 

Positive

The initial setup is relatively easy. 

Licensing is on a yearly or monthly basis and you pay for each device. It's an expensive solution. 

For first time users, I'd recommend contacting the Central Team for guidance.

I rate the solution nine out of 10. 

We use the solution in our company, we use it on each device or city cars. We use it for security. The solution works in the background and protects us from viruses.

The solution protects our equipment and it works quietly in the background, so as not to disrupt employees. It makes sure we are free of viruses.

If ever something goes wrong, we get information from the panel or from tech on your PC. It alerts us to call support.

The system is automatically cleaned.

The product so far has been good at protecting us. We haven't faced a breach.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's something that any company should be able to handle with ease.

Although the antivirus solution is so good that we've never suffered from an attack, we've had a few problems with false positives where they weren't correct. We received an error message and we had to fix bugs. Otherwise, it was relatively trouble-free. The solution could have more functionality for the administrators of the product. For end-users, it's fine. however administrators need ways to better track everything on the backend, especially the display of threats

We have been using the solution for about five years at this point. It's been a while. 

We have in the past suffered from bugs that would present the wrong message. It's a very small problem, overall. Other than that, it's mostly stable.

The solution offers completely web-based installations. You have only to install it on one PC in an entire network. It allows you to mark every other workstation as possible clients or the software. You can click in solution and simply make different configurations between the installations. It's pretty straightforward. It's not too complex.

The licensing costs are not too high. We pay about 20 Euros a year. It's a reasonable amount to pay.

We're using the latest version of the solution. We're always updating the product.

We are just a customer and end-user of the product. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. For the most part, we have been very happy with it. 

We do plan to continue to use the solution into the future. We don't have plans to change anything.

I primarily use the solution for my clients. I'm a service provider.

It's used as an EDR, which is endpoint detection and response. The solution is used to protect my client's office and their practice.

Overall, I find the entire solution valuable.

Their remote management (RMM) is very good.

I use a portion of their advanced protection tool. It's great for monitoring and taking a deeper look at various scenarios.

I love the function of it and what it does. I love the graphics, the view. The actual dashboard is good. It has a lot of information. It's very useful.

The only part I really don't use as much is their firewall. It's a bit superfluous. Most people have their own firewall in place, so they don't really need that part portion of the solution.

Right now the biggest improvement they could implement would be on the administration side. I have to go between different logins. My purchase for my own internal use is totally different than what my clients are on. It's really difficult to try to manage both and to go back and forth in between them. You need to remind yourself: "Oh, I've got to log into this one or log into that one". It's a different portal for each one. Their portal is, to me, in need of a lot of work. It's just not very good. Its not very intuitive.

The solution really needs to update its entire platform.

I've been using the solution for a couple of years now.

Once you got it up and running and are using it, it's great. 

It's my understanding that they're very easily scaled across a smaller organization. I work with small businesses. However, if a company had to scale from small to large, it's my understanding that they are not very scalable. It's limited.

I use it exclusively right now. If my clients need me to, I would increase usage in the future.

I don't use technical support that often, so I don't have much of a need for them. However, when I talked to them in the past, I noticed that they were not here in America. They're actually based in Spain. They just got purchased, however. My understanding is that the company just got acquired by WatchGuard. I don't know how this will affect the support in the future. A lot of things will probably change.

I used multiple different products. I switched to them because they had a SIEM behind it. That's really the only reason.

I used to use iShare. iShare went out of business. When that happened, I had to switch from that. They were kind of like an EDR, however,  they still offered more antivirus type items instead of EDR. Panda, on the other hand, has the EDR plus a SIEM behind it and I'm really an advocate for SIEMs.

The initial setup is pretty complex. It's not straightforward. They were not meant to be set up for the MSP model, which is month to month. They're more based on an old model, which involves buying so many licenses for the computer. It's hard to do. They haven't really upgraded their methods, at least for the last three years. 

I couldn't even use the systems management because it wasn't a part of the license. Their patch management still isn't up to date and ready for the MSP side of things. There are parts of the whole process that are just off.

Now that the company has been acquired, I'm under the impression they're currently changing a lot of their pricing.

The pricing has different levels. The full cost depends on what you want. I personally am using a few different items. It's not a simple flat fee. 

It is complicated to get pricing. If I needed to add a new client, I would have to go and ask them what the pricing is every time. Or, I have to look up emails that they sent me that have information on pricing.

I'm a consultant and reseller.

I'd advise other organizations to try the solution. That's all I can say. There are so many different aspects of it and so many different pieces that you can put it together depending on what you're using it for. The solution itself is great. It's just all the other stuff around it that is sometimes difficult.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If it wasn't for the dated platform, I'd rate it a bit higher.

We use the tool for endpoint protection. 

WatchGuard EPDR improves organization primarily by supporting the IT team rather than the end users directly. It helps IT teams accomplish more with fewer people. One of its standout features is the patch management solution, which allows companies without up-to-date services like WSUS to manage patches for Windows and Linux systems. Additionally, it provides the usual endpoint protection features such as virus and malware protection, application control, and website control.

The tool's most valuable feature is patch management. Patch management is particularly valuable because few other companies, like Trend Micro and Kaspersky, offer integrated patch management solutions within their endpoint protection products.

WatchGuard EPDR does have areas for improvement. One significant gap is the lack of a virtual patching feature integrated into the endpoint security. This would be particularly useful for endpoints running operating systems that are no longer supported, such as Windows 7.

I have been using the product for three years. 

As a partner, we have direct access to development. 

Deploying WatchGuard EPDR is quite straightforward. Multiple installation options exist, including manual installation, email installation, etc. Since it's a cloud solution, installing a server is unnecessary. The endpoint installations can be managed easily through various methods, including scripts. Additionally, WatchGuard EPDR comes with well-configured default policies.

The primary maintenance task involves updating the endpoint agents. Occasionally, you might encounter issues with agents, which are typically related to the operating system rather than the solution itself.

The product helps to reduce the company's operational costs. 

The solution's pricing is better compared to other products. 

I'd rate WatchGuard EPDR a seven out of ten. It lacks a proper virtual patching solution, which competitors like Trend Micro and CloudStrike offer.

We can replace one appliance solution with Panda Security Adaptive Defense.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its device control.

Panda Security Adaptive Defense’s stability could be improved.

I have been using Panda Security Adaptive Defense for one year.

Panda Security Adaptive Defense is a stable solution. I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

I rate Panda Security Adaptive Defense ten out of ten for scalability.

The initial setup of Panda Security Adaptive Defense is not complex. It's very easy.

The solution's deployment time depends on the dimension of the client and the number of licenses the customer wants to have. For example, it takes less than one hour to deploy ten licenses.

Customers need to pay monthly licensing costs for Panda Security Adaptive Defense, which is not expensive.

Panda Security Adaptive Defense is deployed on the cloud. I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate Panda Security Adaptive Defense nine out of ten.

We have five licenses for internal use, not for sale. For other users, we utilize demonstration licenses or organization licenses.

Firstly, we can manage it on the cloud. Secondly, we have control over our devices, specifically USB ports, allowing us to block or control the traffic. In cases where clients cannot afford a Firebox, they can use Panda Security as a cost-effective solution to protect their devices. It enables widespread usage.

As for areas of improvement, there is always room for enhancement. The stability could be improved. Both me and my teammates who use Panda Security have experienced some issues.

I have been working with this solution for five months. 

It is a stable solution. I would rate the stability of Panda Security Adaptive Defense nine out of ten. 

Panda Security is a comprehensive security solution because it includes a firewall.

At the moment, there are 20 users using this solution. It is regularly used. Moreover, we do have plans to increase its usage.

The customer service and support team is good. We like the support. 

We have a team of four for deployments and maintenance. We have two administrators and two support members who provide guidance on usage.

I had to make a technical call to implement this solution for the clients. It has been a part of my daily work ever since. Currently, I am providing training to my teammates on how to set it up internally and for clients. 

Some clients initially prefer a demonstration before committing to payment. In such cases, we create a client profile and provide a demonstration license for a month. We use it during that period.

As for licensing costs, we pay for a yearly license. It is an expensive licensing. 

In Africa, we suffer attacks all the time. It's an everyday need. We need to protect our devices and our information from these attacks. In terms of recommendations, I would suggest using Panda Security to protect computers against these and other types of attacks. 

Many people initially struggle with licensing costs, and some resort to open-source solutions. However, when they experience an attack, they realize the importance of using a commercial license. 

We recently discussed the issue of device protection during a session where Panda Security was recommended. Many people have shown interest in the solution, and we are waiting for feedback. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Panda Security as a ten. 

We're primarily using the solution for security purposes. It is for software and malware blocking, URL blocking, and executables. We use it to monitor PCs to check for threats and updates, et cetera. It helps with endpoint protection.

The solution makes it easy to unblock software. 

I like the way they show inventory and the serial number of devices. 

The initial setup is very straightforward.

It is stable, and the performance is good.

It is scalable.

The cost is not too high. 

It would help if it would monitor the network better and offer email protection for better monitoring. 

I've used the solution for one and a half years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's very trustworthy. The performance is quite good. It's updated well. 

It is easy to give access to people who need to see the admin panel from their PC.

I'd rate the stability eight out of ten.

It is scalable. You can make groups or divide the company departments and add specific rules to each. It's simple.

We have about 100 users at this time. At this time, we do not have plans to increase usage. 

We've never used technical support. 

It is easy to set up the solution. It's not overly complex. 

It took maybe a week to deploy it to the whole company.

We were able to deploy it through email or the Active Directory. It can also be installed manually. The setup is flexible. 

You only need one or two people to deploy and maintain the solution. We have engineers that can handle these tasks. 

We handled the setup in-house. We did not need any outside assistance. 

I have not evaluated the ROI. However, it is worth to cost of the product.

You do need to pay for a license to use the solution. However, I do not know the exact cost. My understanding is it is not expensive. 

I did not previously evaluate other options. 

We're using the latest version of the solution. 

There may be better solutions; however, for now, we use this.

I'd advise new users to first know the rules they wish to implement before doing the full deployment.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Our primary use case for this solution is security protection as anti-virus software.

The dashboard management feature is valuable.

The solution should have additional endpoint protection.

We have been using the solution for approximately one year.

The solution is scalable, and the entire company uses it.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support.

We previously used Symantec. However, we switched because some of our operating systems were becoming older, and we needed to find something to keep us in those older devices.

The initial setup is easy.

We implemented it in-house, and it took approximately 20 minutes per machine. So we did not require many people for deployment.

I rate the licensing costs an eight out of ten.

We evaluated Sophos.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. I recommend this solution to users looking for something economical to cover most of their bases.