We compared Trend Micro Deep Security and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Trend Micro Deep Security is praised for its patch management feature and comprehensive security options. However, it needs improvement in pricing, technical support, and various functionalities. On the other hand, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is commended for its user-friendly interface and strong security protection. Suggestions for enhancements include documentation, compatibility, and performance. The pricing and licensing for both products are considered average or on the expensive side, depending on the user's perspective. The customer service and support for both products have received mixed reviews, with some users finding them satisfactory and others mentioning room for improvement.
"I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"The stability is very good."
"It provides good security."
"Endpoint Security's most valuable feature is its heuristic analysis. This heuristic approach means that it learns from its past experiences. It is the most valuable feature they have. This contributes to dealing with ransomware, detection, and early mitigation actions."
"The performance is good. It doesn't use a lot of resources, which is crucial for us."
"The solution is user-friendly and the dashboard is good."
"I am impressed with the tool's main dashboard, anti-malware application blocking, DDoS, etc."
"I have found the security, device, web and application controls to be the most valuable features."
"It allows for a solid form of risk management as well as a measure of remote device management."
"The initial setup was fairly simple, taking only a few minutes."
"The file integrity and log inspection are game-changing features for us."
"Aside from the basic antivirus features, there are additional features such as vulnerability protection, firewall, etc. which are helpful."
"Patch management is most valuable. The major selling point of Deep Security is that it is based on the cloud. Deep Security is for the servers and databases of data centers, and generally, for patch management, you have to shut down the machines, and then you have to restart them. So, they need shutdown time, which is a cost. Big enterprises don't want to shut down their database or their data center for any kind of patch. Deep Security creates a wall and downloads all patches. You install it on the cloud. So, it saves your server from any kind of intrusion or any kind of penetration, and whenever you get a chance or time, in six, eight, or nine months, you can physically download or install all those patches in one go. So, it saves you time. It also saves your shutdown time and keeps your data center safe."
"Their support is good. They are responsive, which is nice."
"In addition to providing our clients a view of what's happening in their data centers, it also does virtual patching in the data center. It enhances the security in the data center big time."
"Virtual patching is a wonderful feature where we do a recommendation scan and an internal assessment on the server, and it updates the IPS signatures to block any attack. I have seen instances where it has prevented attacks on the end-of-support servers such as 2018 R2, and many years ago, even 2007 servers that were end-of-support. It certainly helped there."
"It's scalable."
"Easy to scale, stable solution for workload and server security and protection. It's easy to set up and has a good ransomware protection feature."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The solution could use better reporting."
"They can improve the zero-day exploit to be more effective."
"I would like the solution to be able to allow to have end to end security services from the final user to the server."
"This solution would be improved if it were more compatible with Windows Server. There is not a client for Windows Server, like for Windows Workstation, so there are a lot of things you cannot control from the local system, or from the desktop directly. You have to control everything from the policy server, not from the client's side. The interface is kind of light, and it's not good—it could be more user-friendly."
"The initial setup is complex."
"This product could be improved by integration with Linux. The one limitation this product has is that it's not compatible with and doesn't offer protection for Linux servers. It could also be easier to configure."
"It would be better if it were more secure and stable. I would also like to see more powerful features in the next release."
"The application updates and drive encryption are lacking."
"I've not worked with CrowdStrike Falcon, but one of our customers also had CrowdStrike Falcon on some of the devices. I was only supporting Trend Micro. They had a ransomware attack, but Trend Micro didn't detect that particular ransomware attack, whereas CrowdStrike did."
"Post-implementation is time-consuming. You have to do monitoring, and that takes time. After you set up everything, it's not a full-fledged implementation. You have to keep on monitoring and configuring."
"Another issue is if I want to suggest this solution to a customer, we won't get the pricing immediately, which is a major problem."
"The licensing structure could improve."
"We have had some issues when it drains some of the resources of the server."
"I would like them to add EDR features, moving away from traditional signature-based anti-malware."
"I would rate tech support in the range of six to eight out of 10. Time to provide solution could be improved."
"The updates for legacy systems are not rolled out frequently."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 111 reviews while Trend Micro Deep Security is ranked 1st in Virtualization Security with 81 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0, while Trend Micro Deep Security is rated 8.6. 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 Trend Micro Deep Security writes "High availability, effective VPM, and responsive support". 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 Trend Micro Deep Security is most compared with Trend Vision One Endpoint Security, CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Symantec Endpoint Security and Symantec Data Center Security.
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.