We performed a comparison between Intercept X Endpoint and Panda Adaptive Defense 360 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."We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"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."
"The stability is very good."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"It provides a feature for scanning and analyzing endpoints, which is a value-add for our infrastructure. With the advancements in the Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs), Sophos Intercept X analyzes an APT and the behavior of the endpoints. It then gives us a detailed dashboard with more information about the endpoints and their security and risk level. While deploying Sophos Intercept X, we identified a lot of vulnerability and risky endpoints that our previous solution didn't cover, which proved that this solution is the best."
"One reason why I have stuck with Sophos is because it grabs it and deals with it, and if it's known malware, it can quarantine it or delete it."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"Synchronization with the firewall is most valuable."
"We find the app control and its threat protection to be the best features."
"It is stable and has a good price. I find it very good."
"The key factor that attracted me to Sophos Intercept X was the multi-platform. I have multiple clients that have mixed environments of Mac and Windows. I am able to deliver a standard solution, regardless of the platform."
"The pricing is fair. It's not too costly for our small organization."
"The feature I find most valuable is the advance search engine."
"The patch management module is very important."
"The most valuable features of Panda Security Adaptive Defense are the useful hardware information it provides, light on resources, controllable from the console, remote scan functionality, and the blocking of a lot of URL malware."
"We have control over our devices, specifically USB ports, allowing us to block or control the traffic."
"Great technical support staff."
"It prevents our users from circumventing security. Everything is password protected so they can't get into it. They can't uninstall it. They can't do anything."
"Their remote management (RMM) is very good."
"It allows us to stop activation windows."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"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."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"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."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"There should be a report including a flowchart or diagram. It will be useful to evaluate the software’s effectiveness."
"Technical support is too slow to schedule meetings."
"The ADR functionalities feel like they aren't mature enough. It hasn't been a long time since Sophos has offered reproduction. Due to the fact that it's so young, it has fewer functionalities than other and more mature ADR solutions."
"The EDR could be improved, and perhaps the User Interface."
"When I use a proxy, I can bypass Sophos, which is an area that needs improvement."
"The performance offered by the product needs improvement."
"They should keep doing what they're doing. Both of them have entered the EDR/MDR space, and they're keeping up with their competitors. I have a hard time understanding why their capabilities aren't garnering more attention."
"The initial setup can be a bit challenging."
"They need to expand their offering of add-ons to enhance capabilities further."
"Panda Security Adaptive Defense is stable. However, when updates are being done on the computers we can experience some troubles because the computers need to be restarted. When we start the computers they are not functioning correctly and we have not received proper feedback regarding this random issue."
"Occasionally, we suffer from little bugs that give us the wrong message."
"It needs some improvements in the DNS security feature. Currently, it does not have full DNS security. It only has semi-DNS security, which can be improved. It is an important feature for us, and it would be really good if they can improve the DNS security feature. Our group has some plans to change to Cisco AMP, which has features such as DNS, Umbrella. We are trying to learn about Cisco AMP and compare it with Panda."
"Needs a better way to scan the hardware to detect whether it's valid."
"The only part I really don't use as much is their firewall. It's a bit superfluous. Most people have their own firewall in place, so they don't really need that part portion of the solution."
"It needs improvements in its EDR and its ability to manage all the nodes. I'd like better communication between the console and the nodes, so I don't have to remote into each individual machine that's having an issue with the protection."
"I'd like to integrate it into my main services."
Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 101 reviews while Panda Adaptive Defense 360 is ranked 22nd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 26 reviews. Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4, while Panda Adaptive Defense 360 is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Panda Adaptive Defense 360 writes "Managing multiple machines is a pain, but support is top notch". Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas Panda Adaptive Defense 360 is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and WatchGuard EPDR. See our Intercept X Endpoint vs. Panda Adaptive Defense 360 report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.