We performed a comparison between Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business and WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection 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."The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"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."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The stability is very good."
"The main feature of this solution is it is easy to use."
"The policies are easy to make and controlled by the Kaspersky Administrative Security Center, which comes at no additional costs."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is a very powerful tool for us. We use a lot of third-party software that integrates well with the solution."
"The most valuable features for us include data security, as well as web browsing and password management security measures."
"Endpoint Security is efficient and easy to use. It doesn't slow the performance of your personal computer."
"The initial setup was extremely straightforward and very easy."
"The solution provides protection for all our systems, file servers, endpoints and domain controllers."
"It offers very good security protection."
"There is a layer of security to prevent a malicious agent (malware) from interrupting or stopping services, deleting or modifying registry entries or even stopping the antivirus from acting, ensuring that there will be no interruption of protection."
"F-Secure is useful for keeping user machines up-to-date by pushing out security and critical updates."
"The notifications and patch management features are valuable."
"We use the product for detecting network vulnerabilities and for software update purposes."
"Both incoming and outgoing traffic is protected."
"On the cloud management page, the solution scales up very highly."
"The most valuable features of WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection are the clear useful portal and overall company protection."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"The company needs to keep developing more security measures to help keep its customers safe. If they could keep adding to security features, it would be ideal."
"Malware protection for Kaspersky should be revolutionized, where they no longer work with signatures, but with more advanced ways of detecting malware, such as Cylance or Traps from Palo Alto."
"It would be preferable if the product were more proactive and more modern in its approach to security and protection."
"We would like it so that if a user uses it on-premises, the server should use fewer hardware resources."
"There are times when Microsoft Windows's antivirus called Defender interferes with the functionality of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. There should be better integration with Windows."
"I think it would be good for them to consider and cloud integration capabilities."
"This solution needs improvement in the reporting section. Reporting in Kaspersky Endpoint is good but it's not that great. The platform needs to centralize reporting control."
"We are having some troubles because some American companies we work with don't want to work with Kaspersky."
"There is no technical support available in the Middle East."
"But the biggest one for us is patch management because this has been our top priority when looking at alternatives. Every solution needs to have patch management, if that's possible. It would cut costs on our side if that feature were included, so we don't need to pay for two separate pieces of software."
"The program and cloud service management is in English. It's not a problem for me, however, it might be for users who don't speak English or use it regularly."
"There could be a dedicated security partner with essential knowledge."
"The solution could improve by having more real-time responses. For example, when a license gets removed from a computer it does not update the records of the change. Additionally, when I installed Microsoft Windows Defender I was not able to send licenses through email to our tenants. The integration with other solutions could improve."
"I would like the part of Hash Analysis by external sources to be improved."
"Resource consumption is suboptimal and could be improved."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
More WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 111 reviews while WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection is ranked 38th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 7 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0, while WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection writes "Good for pushing out security updates but it needs to add patch management". Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Trend Vision One Endpoint Security, whereas WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, Fortinet FortiClient, Symantec Endpoint Security and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business vs. WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection 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.