WatchGuard EPDR Reviews

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.

It's very easy to deploy, we don't have any problem or issues with it. It's almost full automatic. It basically makes the assumption that everything is supposed to be suspicious; files, processes, URL accesses, and so on. Everything is checked once in the cloud and it's assessed as malware or safe. You're free to use it. It's simple enough to be used by a non-specialist, by regular users. You don't need a large security team to manage it. 

The gap between the two final conclusions is a problem, whether or not a file is known to be malware or is known to be safe. There is a gap between this space which means that some time in which the attestation service works on the conclusion it might regenerate this gap through the communication process. For example, if an employee gets his laptop and goes somewhere where it doesn't have full access to Panda Cloud, meaning the attestation service in the Panda Cloud, it will lose the connection and it cannot promptly receive the attestation conclusion.

If you travel or something like that or there's a lapse in time in which the lack of the conclusion regarding a required item like a file or process or whatever, is lacking. Panda understood it might be a huge problem for the whole solution. They resolved it in a way that I don't like. They assumed that there is a knowledgeable person in the customer security team that will assume the conclusion and will either set that everything is supposed to be malware or everything is supposed to be safe, unless it's attested by the Panda Cloud. There are just these two options. You have a checkbox and you just check or uncheck the checkbox, meaning you assume that the non-attested item is assumed to be malware. If you put the checkmark, it is assumed to be safe. Either conclusion means we will have either false positives or false negatives. This is an issue they didn’t solve well.

They didn't solve this issue well first of all because it is only a single checkbox to do this. As a suggestion, they could use several similar checkboxes, for example, one for executable files, one for malware detections or suspicions, and so on. You either treat unattested items as malware or either as safe items, which is not good.

I have been using Panda Security Adaptive Defense for fourteen months.

I haven't had any crashes. I recall having some issues deploying agents on Linux distributions, but I don't recall which distributions. It is possible that they have some issues there. The way they distributed agents seems like they rebuilt some packages and then activated them into the OS, which is not a good way of distributing software. It requires a specific set of libraries and OS modules. If your distribution doesn't have it, it might end in an installment crash on that endpoint. 

Stability depends on the networking because getting network connectivity interruptions on the endpoints breaks the continuous state of the security.

It is good for small and medium-sized companies. 

They have a lot of support sites. I haven't need to contact them for support.

It is remarkably easy to deploy. 

The time it takes to deploy depends on the customer infrastructure of course. I think a medium 1000 endpoint infrastructure could take around one day. You can use the group policy if you integrate with a local domain or something. They provide several tools to deploy it. It's nice.

The amount of people required to deploy depends on the complexity of the infrastructure. If you have branch offices or sub-networks distributed regionally or geographically, you probably will need more than one person.

If you have Active Directory across multi-domain distribution and so on, your team should be more than one person. For smaller customers, I assume one well-trained security person could do the work in one day.

The attestation paradigm is specific to Panda. I haven't found it anywhere else as strongly enforced into the solution.

My advice would be to follow the general rules, do a trial, learn about it well. Test it in a test environment, change the settings according to your customer-specific needs, and then implement it if you find it has advantages.

In the next release, I would like for them to add DDR features, threat intelligence, and more analytics. It lacks in that area. It should be integrated better with CMS and other useful enterprise applications and tools.

Threat intel also needs improvement. If I was a security analyst, employed in a company and my boss asked me what I think about this solution, the first place I’d look is where the threat intel is. It just lacks this. It is well hidden in cloud attestation service.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

We are a system integrator and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients.

We set up Panda Security Adaptive Defense for endpoint protection.

Since implementing this solution, we have not had any trouble with malware.

The most valuable feature is the web filter application control.

This solution is very easy to implement.

The granularity of security is very good because we can create different groups that are categorized, for example, by the department. There are policies in place to assist with this.

The reports are good and help us to better manage our system.

The Linux installation is performed on the command line and they need a package installer for that operating system.

We have been working with Panada Security for six months.

This solution is stable, at least for now. We haven't experienced any issues or received any reports that the endpoint has crashed or it is missing from the network. Overall, it seems to be performing well and is always functioning.

I think that Panda Security is scalable because you just need to install the package and it will adapt. You can perform cloud-based management. You can add as many subscriptions as you need to.

Our clients are in the banking industry and one of them has about 50 branches. They initially purchased about 500 licenses from us and they also have a corporate team that has another 300 licenses.

I have not contacted technical support by telephone or email. When I have run into problems, I just performed a Google search and used the knowledge base. That was enough to solve our problems.

I have also worked with Sophos. It is a better solution but Panada Security is more economical and the feature set is good.

It is hard to install and deploy on a Linux operating system.

We implement this solution for our clients and train them with the knowledge required to manage and use it.

The licensing is subscription-based and priced well compared to other endpoint security solutions. The price is good for the functionality that it provides.

In general, this product is performing to our expectations. Of course, the best thing to do if you're going to purchase any product is to do a proof of concept first. There are limitations with any software but based on our experience, we are happy with Panda Security Adaptive Defense. That said, it is not perfect.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients.

This solution is used to assist cybersecurity.

This solution has different modules.

The most valuable module is antivirus, which has a whitelist mode that will block everything other than approved transactions. This gives us the ability to define different profiles in terms of the level of protection.

The patch management module is very important.

The systems management module, which can be used for asset inventory and for remote support, is very good.

This solution can scan the entire network and discover all of the systems where it is not installed.

Improvements could be made in terms of how the reporting is structured.

We have been dealing with Panda Security Adaptive Defense for about two years.

My clients have not told me about any trouble with stability.

I have not had any feedback about scalability.

Technical support is always available and I work with them a lot. They are excellent.

I have not sold security solutions other than what is offered by Panda. However, I have personally worked with tools such as Kaspersky. The main difference with Panda is that it uses goodware instead of malware. All other antivirus solutions block know viruses using their definitions, whereas Panda, on the other hand, allows known software and applications and blocks everything else.

The initial setup is very straightforward.

The price of this solution depends on the number of licenses that you are purchasing.

This is a very good product. It may feel that it is a bit more expensive but in my experience, it is easily worth it. The core functionality of the product is very impressive and I recommend that people use it. That said, there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I work in a company that implements firewall solutions. I am a systems integrator, not a customer. In the simplest sense, my primary use of this solution is to have as an option for our clients.  

In our company, we try to use every product we sell and implement in order to know how it works and if it is any good. We cannot represent products well if we are not familiar with them.

Panda Security has improved my organization because it gives us another option to present to customers and potential customers to fit their needs and usage.  

In essence, Panda Security is a lot like every other antivirus product. It has protection from zero-day exploits which is the most important feature out of any of the solutions. It is similar to zero-day malware or ransomware protection in that it can protect you from anything that you need protection from that is yet unknown. 

Panda Security has a feature to block any unknown process and that is what is best about it.  

Another valuable feature is the ease-of-use. We have one big client — big for our country — that has 250 licenses. I think they are very satisfied with Panda Security because it is quite simple to use. Users just want to have something that is more easy-to-use and that is it. They don't care a lot about everything else.  

The product can improve in several ways. I think the most important improvement would be in the area of modification. They have add-ons that can be used to add functionality to the base package like encryption or patch management. But they could do much more to improve the catalog of modifications and offer more. My impression is that they only have a few options. I'm not sure if they have an iOS version. I know that they have an Android version. But they could be improving and expanding the product options much more to make it more universal and with more capability.  

I have been using Panda since coming to this organization but my previous company did work with the product as well. So in total, I have been using it for two years, more-or-less.  

It is quite a stable solution. I have never seen or experienced any issues with it.  

The scalability of the solution is very good. It can be expanded very easily. They just add your licenses on the portal since it is on the cloud. When they add your licenses to the portal you are ready to use it.  

In my company, we have about 30 users using the product. We have clients who have up to about 250 users.  

The initial setup is not complex. Once you go through the setup of one console, it is easy to use. But it always depends on the customer. How many applications they have to allow requires additional setup.  

The pricing for Panda is reasonable. It is cloud-only at a reasonable cost. It is set as price per seat.  

Advice that I would give to anyone deploying Panda Security is to tell them to block every process except the known ones. In this case, you will start in the best situation and with the safest approach. It is better to block every unknown or new process because these can be threats. You can then unblock those that you want to have running. For example, if you add new processes or discover processes that were blocked and should not be, you can just unblock or add them.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as about an eight out of ten. They still need to improve a lot of features and they need to work on and add to the knowledge base that can be accessed by users and customers.  

If they add the features for expanding the add-ons and improve their mobile application support, that would give them a nine out of ten.  

We use this solution for all the processes in our environment. When we test processes, we put it in audit mode where it basically launches itself. It tests the applications and processes that are used, and then it restructures the entire environment. You turn it on protective mode so that every time a new process starts in the environment, the administrators are notified. This allows the administrators to decide if they want it to route wired or not.

The feature I find most valuable is the advanced search engine. It is really easy to drill down by the logs to search for any connection from any user station. It allows us to easily figure out if any station is, for instance, connecting to Russia, China, Korea or any other place. So one can easily drill down and get a good overview of which applications you are using that are connecting a player to the next local operation center. It is then very easy for the security operation center to figure out if they are under any threats. 

What I like about this product is the pitching and versioning of the application itself and I would like to use it for the documents and the public protection. I would like to see better data protection, for instance using fingerprints to log in.

The solution is very stable and does not slow down the system at all.

Panda is very scalable and it is easy to compare to other machines that come into the process on a daily basis. We currently have 100 users on his program. Then we have one administrator and one supervisor who decide whether the software is compatible. 

The technical support is excellent. The technical team knows what they are doing and any request or question we have, gets fixed within a matter of minutes.

We used SSPS antivirus program for our clients, as well as AVG AntiVirus. We had a chance to test Panda Security before putting it in production. When we saw the capabilities of the program, we decided to switch to it. 

The setup is really easy, you only install the Panda Security Adaptive agent, and it will show you the basic information about the system. Then you can switch to whatever you want function you need, like to manually run the scans and force the system to update itself. The program is really easy to maintain.

We used an integrator and his support team. We are also resellers of the product.

We definitely saw a return on investment.

The capabilities of the extra search engine cost a little bit more and the availability of extra lifetime amounts to about 100 Euro's per company per year. I don't think that is expensive. My advice to others would be that they should first try it out a few solutions before they decide which solution is the best for them. Test it first to see the possibilities of the product. 

There are a few options to change or improve, but so far the product is very good. I will rate it a nine out of ten.

• Ease of setup and deployment
• Support readily available

Reduced the number of malware/virus issue encounters and dashboard alerts providing better visibility. Could patch and deploy updates to Windows and third-party applications, and the email protection did its job. They also helped in Asset tracking.

Needs a service desk system to link up with endpoint protection and email protection.

Four years.

None, but ensure you test Panda updates/upgrades prior to a company-wide rollout.

None, it is scalable. Licenses are processed quite quickly.

A nine out of 10.

We were on ManageEngine and Symantec, then moved to Panda Cloud and used the service desk of ManageEngine.

Required uninstall of some previous clients which were older than the Panda uninstaller, but in two days, we were migrated over.

Normal package works great, the advance option gives you more application awareness for a more controlled approach, and also forensic analysis, which opens one's eyes to how these malware programs operate.

We looked at Eset, F-Secure, and Trend Micro.

It worked well for the time we had it in, and local support was great! If an issue had to be escalated, international remote support was provided.

Most of the products out there are quite good. Know how you would prefer to manage them.

We are very satisfied with the product. It's a very good product.

The interface is great.

There could be improvements to the PC policy. For example, they could improve policies related to the software to disable, folders and files and patch updates for Windows workstations and machines.

We have been using this solution for five years, primarily with our customers. We are using version Fusion 360, and it is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. We have 70 customers with five PCs per customer.

The technical support is very good.

The implementation was difficult. When installing Panda Security Adaptive Defense on a customer's PC, it must download the agent and then run agent files to set up the product.

The price is very reasonable and does not cost a lot. It is €30 per PC per year.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten.