We performed a comparison between Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) and WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Anti-Malware Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the ease of administration. Other solutions require complex administration, but Microsoft Exchange Online Protection is easier."
"The product's most valuable feature is third-party integrations."
"It is easy to configure, easy to use, easy to add exclusions, easy to track, and easy to add anything else if you want."
"Online Protection's most valuable feature is its admin interface."
"Microsoft Exchange Online Protection has features like DLP (data loss protection), Safe Attachment, and Safe Links."
"The scalability is pretty good; it does what it is supposed to do."
"We can migrate seamlessly without any disruptions to our operations."
"We use the solution in all our environments. We use it for remedy tickets and give them updates. It was our main communication point."
"I haven't a problem with anti-virus stability using WatchGuard for over two years."
"It is the most effective on non-encrypted traffic and it is able to determine some threats through deep packet inspection."
"The pricing of the solution is okay. It's not the most expensive option."
"The solution needs to improve its backup."
"Performance and speed should continue to be improved."
"When the product is being updated, it changes some of the setups. The support team is also not good."
"Our company faces difficulty with Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) because it's too big, clunky, and difficult for a small client to implement quickly and easily."
"If a company wants to put in line back-to-back anti-spam solutions, they need to work on that part because Microsoft recommends either you use EOP as a front line or you don't use it."
"The biggest issue that I experience is that Microsoft keeps moving things around, and it's very inconsistent as to where you find the information when you're trying to work on different pieces."
"The solution can be complex at times. It would be nice to have the on-server version. It needs to improve the stability as well."
"It doesn't protect against everything. We do need protection for, for example, endpoints."
"It doesn't offer the best protection and it's incompatible with a lot of China's websites. It makes a lot of mistakes when it is detecting items as it's not recognizing items correctly."
"WatchGuard technical support requires a license."
"The solution isn't what I would consider feature-rich."
More Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) is ranked 11th in Anti-Malware Tools with 34 reviews while WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus is ranked 45th in Anti-Malware Tools. Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) is rated 8.2, while WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) writes "An effective email security solution that provides DLP, Safe Attachment, and Safe Links". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus writes "A fully complete suite with VPN, firewall, and anti-virus agents for network management". Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Proofpoint Email Protection, Cisco Secure Email, Fortinet FortiMail and Mimecast Email Security, whereas WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Hornetsecurity Email Spam Filter and Malware Protection. See our Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) vs. WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus report.
See our list of best Anti-Malware Tools vendors.
We monitor all Anti-Malware Tools 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.