We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Webroot Business Endpoint Protection based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: When selecting the best Endpoint Protection (EPP) for business, PeerSpot users feel Microsoft Defender is the better choice for Windows and Azure products, although Webroot does receive higher marks in the service and support and deployment categories.
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"This is stable and scalable."
"It is stable and scalable."
"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."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"This solution definitely increases our security posture. When you are reviewing your existing fleet or endpoints and based on the configuration that you put out of your Defender for Endpoint, you then receive a security score from Microsoft. Depending on what rules you have configured, what policies you have deployed, and what attack surface reduction rules that you have set up and deployed, it is almost gamifying information security in the sense that you are always trying to achieve a higher score. The more hardening you perform on your endpoints, the better score you receive. This generally tends to give you a better peace of mind, but also makes you secure at the same time."
"It's a Microsoft product; it's easier to deploy this product than other options."
"Defender is stable, I haven't had any problems with viruses when using it, and it's easy to update."
"The solution can scale as needed."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is easy to load and it runs quietly in the background, unlike other solutions."
"We use Microsoft Defender for the antivirus."
"The patch updates and version updates are very good. Those happen on an automated basis whenever I'm connecting to the organization network, either through LAN or through the VPN."
"The whole bundle of the product, which is similar to other Microsoft products, is valuable. Ten years ago, you had third-party stuff for different things. You had one solution for email archiving and another third-party one for something else. Nowadays, Microsoft Office covers all the stuff that was formerly covered by third-party solutions. It is the same with antivirus. The functionality is just basic. You have the scanning, and then you also have a kind of cloud-based protection and reporting about your environment. With Microsoft Security Center, you have a complete overview of your environment. You know the software inventory, and you have security recommendations. You can not only see that the antivirus is up to date; you can also see where are the vulnerabilities in your system. Microsoft Security Center tells you where you have old, deprecated software and what kind of CVEs are addressed. It's really cool stuff."
"Their policy management, their cloud-based dashboard and user interface are very easy to navigate."
"Probably, compared to other antivirus programs, what we like about it is it is lightweight."
"Valuable features include good scanning, very light footprint and management console that the client can access and (just as important) in which I can see status of groups of computers (I am a consultant, IT role)."
"It is very lightweight on the workstations, not slowing them down while still doing its job very well."
"It is pretty unintrusive. It doesn't take over the system like McAfee or Norton. It doesn't use a whole lot of resources. McAfee and Norton use a lot of resources."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It took five minutes. I installed the solution myself."
"The solution has many features. It is very easy to define and set the policies based on the user groups, it does not take up a lot of resources in operation, and has provided us with a good track record of protection."
"The traffic security monitoring, traffic application access feature called the agent, the main feature which is the endpoint security feature are the ones I found valuable. And it also had the in branch security in kind of SD WAN, good three hundred and sixty protection. It is specific and there is ease of deployment also present."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"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."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"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."
"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 time to generate certain alerts on our dashboard can take between 45 minutes to an hour, and I am unsure of the factors that influence this duration."
"On the Mac OS platform, there is no parity between Windows and Mac OS. The solution is very feature-rich and very well-integrated into Windows, and I guess baked into Windows 10 and Windows 11. Whereas, on the Mac OS platform, there is still some work there to give it a more feature-reach platform."
"In terms of improvement, they update the platform it seems quite a bit. Every month something is in a new spot or something changed somewhere. There should be less of that."
"The second major area for improvement involves enhanced capabilities for different operating systems or platforms. That is, even though we have coverage for different operating systems or platforms such as Linux, we don't get all of the controls and enhanced capabilities that are available with Windows devices."
"It should support non-Windows products better. Microsoft is now one of the leading vendors in the security area. So, they should be product-independent."
"It is currently more suitable for end-users rather than enterprises with lots of other processes and third-party tools. It needs improvement on that front. We had many issues while integrating it with our enterprise solutions, such as Splunk, and third-party tools. It provides everything via APIs. Other vendors provide integration with third-party tools, but Microsoft doesn't do that. It is also logging too much and is not serialized from the process aspect. It has all the data, but it is not in a proper format or not properly indexed, which doesn't make it easier for enterprises to use this data. Other vendors provide troubleshooting information that can be used to troubleshoot issues, but Microsoft doesn't provide anything like that."
"Additional security would be beneficial."
"Microsoft Defender could be improved with features more like the McAfee ePO. It would be better if I had a console to get all the information for my endpoints. Maybe this is too much for it, but it would be better if it could handle those non-signature-based malicious codes or viruses."
"They should provide more information on the type of cyber attacks."
"It would be nice if it had a feature for automatically generating reports on the client end for device status, security status and backup information."
"It needs to improve the problems with the faster connection, and have a huge reduction in false positives."
"We need more control over when upgrades to the app are rolled out."
"Unified threat management (UTM) integration."
"Since they're dealing with multi-core environments now, the best option would be for them to enhance the product so that the product can automatically do an assessment on the machine."
"Their customer support should be better. We started having some issues with it, and we didn't get the required support."
"We need to know more details about how the virus interacted with the computer."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Webroot Business Endpoint Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 182 reviews while Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is ranked 34th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 30 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0, while Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is rated 8.2. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Webroot Business Endpoint Protection writes "Lightweight and not hard to set up however, does not offer good reporting". Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Microsoft Intune, whereas Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Huntress, HP Wolf Security, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Cynet. See our Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. Webroot Business 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.