We performed a comparison between BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Anti-Malware Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the asset discovery, which makes it very easy to locate and identify assets and pull them into the manager."
"I find the comprehensive Privilege Access Management features valuable, including automation, and the ability to integrate with applications and the Windows operating system."
"Technical support is good."
"What I liked about this solution is that it can also integrate for tracking malicious use or sending analytics to a host that can process them. I don't know if CyberArk, Centrify, or Thycotic can do that. The analytics was something the client really wanted, and they already had BeyondTrust. It is very scalable. The agent on the workstation is very thin, and the processing power required on a server is nothing out of the ordinary. It is also very stable and easy to deploy."
"It's relatively straightforward to set up, especially if you are deploying to the cloud."
"I would say session management on the go is the most valuable feature. When the session is going on, you can stop the session without terminating it for justification. You can cancel it. The recording takes very little space. Those are some things which the customers are worried about when they talk about session recording."
"One of the valuable features is the absence of any local user in a unique system. All users are defined in the AD; communication is only between Unix and AD."
"The tool is easy to use and deploy. It has PAM capabilities like privilege access. The solution helps with the management of third parties and vendors. It is an effective solution compared to other alternatives."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is beneficial because we are using Microsoft Windows and all the core solutions are made by Microsoft, such as the authentic platform, operating system, and antivirus protection. It is a heterogeneous environment. We had to use third-party solutions before and update everything separately. For example, the policy for antivirus. With Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, when Microsoft Windows receives updates it will update with it. This is one main advantage of this solution."
"The investigation aspect is the most useful. It's user friendly and has a good user interface."
"It is a straightforward setup."
"Defender's analytics are much better than CrowdStrike's."
"Its simplicity is the most valuable. It also has very good integration. We like it."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is free and part of the licensing stack of other Microsoft products."
"This software is easy to use."
"The solution integrates very well with Windows applications and Microsoft endpoint products."
"How the accounts are presented in the solution's UI can be improved."
"The program updates are very rare and the frequency is too far apart to take care of bug fixes and adding the latest features."
"The product should improve its price."
"It only has limited support for Mac."
"The weaknesses are related to the effort required to migrate from existing technologies or having no Privilege Access Management (PAM) at all to adopting technologies like BeyondTrust. It involves changes in processes and can take a significant amount of time, typically six to twelve months."
"There is room for improvement in having the solution align more with standards. We're always shoehorning the product into the standards. It's not that it doesn't work for standards, it does. But Quick Start Policies are pretty close to what we need. The vendor needs to keep looking at GDPR, 27001, and 27701. That's why our clients buy the product."
"It keeps on breaking every now and then. It is not yet mature. Every time something new comes up or we run into some new issues, the culprit is BeyondTrust because the agents and the adapter are not mature. The new development process goes on, and they're not able to handle things. It should be mature. It shouldn't break every now and then."
"The initial setup was very difficult. Even if you are an expert in EPM, it is still very difficult."
"With regards to the interface, a challenge I found was that there was not enough documentation on how to tune it. I had to read multiple sources on the internet to learn how to configure the tool appropriately."
"The interface isn't necessarily intuitive to a nontechnical person. You can get stuck in the little endpoint security portal. Sometimes, if you uninstall a competitive product, the end user doesn't always know if it's running or if they're protected even though it's silently running. There could be a notification, widget, or something that's resident on the screen for at least a bit, especially if you're doing remote support. You want to talk them through it, but sometimes, we're not allowed to look at the PCs we support."
"It is not very scalable from the eyes of an MSP because there is no dashboard that you can use to see all of your devices that have Windows Defender unless you have your own dashboard or an RMM tool to actually look at it. So, you might not get to know that a particular computer of a client is doing something, and it might have got a virus. That person might know that, but unless you set it up to actually send you the information, you won't get to know that. That's one of the things that is hard with Microsoft Defender. It is not made for the MSP world where you have one pane of glass to see all of your clients with Microsoft Defender on it unless your RMM tool already has that built-in and it can see the telemetry from Microsoft Defender."
"We encountered some issues when we were trying to enable automatic updates from our group policy."
"Features like device inventory continue to lack essential workstation drill-downs showing the entire device information with the least effort."
"We would like to see more tools for managing on-premises security... Sometimes, we have the tools, like Defender, to manage security in the cloud, but because we are so focused on the cloud, we forget the fact that we need to be sure about the security of the on-premises environment, specifically Active Directory."
"Microsoft support could be more knowledgeable."
"I think Microsoft needs to improve some of the security aspects of Defender. The email part, in particular, needs to be improved in terms of security effectiveness."
More BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management is ranked 12th in Anti-Malware Tools with 27 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Anti-Malware Tools with 182 reviews. BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management writes "Admin rights can be granted and revoked within minutes and that is what everything comes down to, for us". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management is most compared with CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager, Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Delinea Secret Server and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint report.
See our list of best Anti-Malware Tools vendors.
We monitor all Anti-Malware Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
