We performed a comparison between Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Protection is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable features of Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security are remote administration and deployment, comprehensive firewall protection, malware protection, and antivirus."
"The product is a good standard security tool."
"The cloud console is good and the tool is effective in protection."
"It is perfectly stable. We haven't received any complaints from customers regarding stability or performance. It's been smooth sailing so far."
"The product offers an opportunity to monitor the things happening in our network. It also has a comprehensive dashboard."
"What I appreciate most about Bitdefender are its web content filtering, blocking malicious sites, and its ability to thwart brute force attacks on open ports."
"The product provides a single dashboard."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the daily updates and protection from virus attacks."
"There is plenty of features that make the solution work very well."
"The performance is good. It doesn't use a lot of resources, which is crucial for us."
"The stability has been good."
"The implementation and integration are easy."
"The product's most valuable features are automation and central administration."
"I think that all the features are valuable for our environment."
"The solution is secure."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"The support needs improvement."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The firewall capabilities could benefit from an upgrade since it lacks a high level of granularity and control."
"There is room for improvement in CPU utilization."
"The security features as per customers' requirements should be improved."
"The lack of detecting security threats and high memory usage need to be improved."
"The live monitoring service from Bitdefender's center is expensive and has room for improvement."
"The initial setup should be made easier."
"My main concern is that it's a bit heavy for some devices. Like Kaspersky or McAfee, it uses more RAM or memory. Similar to that, it causes issues for users and their own resources, similar to that. If you deploy on old legacy devices with only 1GB of RAM, then it could be a problem."
"The solution must be more user-friendly."
"The deployment could be better."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business needs an easier mechanism for updates."
"The solution could improve by having some integration with other vendors."
"A big improvement would be allowing us to reconfigure the agents and change what to whitelist for a specific user. If the user is not happy with the configuration and is being blocked from certain sites, we should be able to reconfigure the monitoring mechanics to make it more flexible."
"Maybe the solution's monitoring could be improved with more dashboards, so there's no back and forth, back and forth."
"There are some features built into Kaspersky that do not work at all, so we have to use other products instead."
"The encryption feature could improve."
"From time to time, some users loose connection via the Network Agent."
More Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security is ranked 28th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 23 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 111 reviews. Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security is rated 8.2, while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security writes "Gives a good snapshot of what's going on". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security is most compared with HP Wolf Security, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, Seqrite Endpoint Security, Trend Micro Apex One and SonicWall Capture Client, whereas Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon and ESET Endpoint Protection Platform. See our Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.