We performed a comparison between Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response and Sangfor Endpoint Secure based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."This is stable and scalable."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"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."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"Kaspersky EDR offers automated response capabilities, enhancing efficiency by enabling quick investigation and response to potential threats on Android devices."
"From my point of view, one of the best aspects of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is its high detection rate, which surpasses many other solutions. Its valuable features include behavior detection, threat prevention, device control, adaptive anomaly control, and centralized protection detection."
"It is a stable solution...It is a very scalable solution."
"Kaspersky EDR is far superior to other products. It gives detailed information about malware, geolocation, and more. Also, the agent itself is very lightweight compared to other products. The packages and updates were quite small in size, just a few KBs."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"One of the good features is the provider's Faulting capability. If any of our systems detect malware, we can check the behavior of the malware by sending it to Kaspersky's sandbox environment. This helps us assess how destructive the malware is. After analyzing it, we can create use cases and protection measures based on that behavior. So, this is the best feature of Kaspersky."
"We have a concept of working from home. Most endpoints are not in the domain. It is our first line of defense. While we had Kaspersky deployed, it gave good insight into the upcoming challenge or threat."
"The product is integrated with endpoint protection. We don't have to implement a separate technology. It provides visibility over the endpoints."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The user-friendliness of Sangfor Endpoint Secure is particularly impressive. Even with basic technical knowledge, users can easily navigate the system, make changes, and implement updates."
"What stands out to me is the dual-end user interface they provide."
"The tool's most valuable features are control access, endpoint security, and load balancing of ISPs."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure has some good policy certificates."
"The most valuable feature I have found in the system is its comprehensive end-to-end protection."
"We use the product for network protection from any malicious threat."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"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."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"One of the main areas where the tool could improve is its integration capabilities. For example, I find it challenging to integrate it with other solutions. It would be helpful if the tool could make it more open to integration with other tools."
"The product does not detect zero-day threats."
"There is room for improvement in its user interface."
"There is room for improvement in the support."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response lacks configuration options."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is expensive. It should improve its stability."
"I want to be able to use the product as a patch management tool for my endpoints since it is an area that is not working effectively for me."
"My team was struggling with the reporting when we were doing an audit. The console features are a little more interactive and user-friendly. There's some issue, or maybe some fixing has to be done."
"There are a few areas for improvement. We have encountered licensing issues on occasion, and sometimes updates don't apply properly."
"It is complicated to establish a tunnel due to technical issues in the VPN system."
"Sometimes, the VPN is not secure and doesn't work properly in Sangfor Endpoint Secure."
"I believe Sangfor Endpoint Secure could improve in terms of its user interface and management capabilities."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure performs poorly."
"Currently, the tool lacks reporting functionalities."
"It would be much more convenient if the migration tool could be installed directly on the customer's VMs, enabling a smoother migration process to the new infrastructure, with potential restrictions addressed accordingly."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is ranked 24th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 16 reviews while Sangfor Endpoint Secure is ranked 30th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 7 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is rated 8.0, while Sangfor Endpoint Secure is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response writes "Provides the ability to send detected malware to Kaspersky's sandbox environment for behavioral analysis". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sangfor Endpoint Secure writes "Provides a unified and multi-layer security solution". Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, whereas Sangfor Endpoint Secure is most compared with SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon, Open EDR, Bitdefender GravityZone EDR and Trend Micro Apex One. See our Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response vs. Sangfor Endpoint Secure report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.
