We compared Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and ZoneAlarm based on users' reviews in six categories. We reviewed all of the data and you can find the conclusion below.
Features: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint excels in file protection, encryption, and ransomware defense. It integrates seamlessly with other Microsoft security products. Users appreciate its user-friendly interface and scalability. ZoneAlarm users said the solution is user-friendly and offers comprehensive protection against various threats, including advanced firewall capabilities.
Room for Improvement: Users say Microsoft Defender for Endpoint should improve its central console and auto-recovery feature. Users also requested better reporting capabilities and integration with third-party platforms. ZoneAlarm users would like to see clearer documentation and improved integration with Check Point’s centralization solution.
Service and Support: Microsoft customer service garnered mixed feedback. Some praised the fast response times and expertise of the support engineers, while others were dissatisfied with slow replies and a lack of coordination among the support teams. Some users said that ZoneAlarm's customer assistance could be improved.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint's setup is straightforward. While it can be more complex for larger organizations, it is generally considered simple, particularly for smaller companies or those familiar with Microsoft environments. ZoneAlarm had a simple and fast setup.
Pricing: Reviewers say Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is fairly priced, noting that it is typically included for free with Windows or Microsoft Office 365 subscriptions. However, some users believe that Microsoft's pricing could be more affordable, and others noted that their licensing models can be complex. ZoneAlarm's pricing is considered competitive.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint delivers cost savings, enhanced efficiency, and heightened threat management. ZoneAlarm offers a positive ROI through security improvements.
Comparison Results: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint offers sophisticated protection against ransomware, easy deployment, and smooth integration with Microsoft solutions. However, Microsoft’s customer support has received middling reviews, and users would like better compatibility with third-party solutions. ZoneAlarm provides comprehensive security measures, easy deployment, and advanced threat technologies. However, it needs better documentation and support.
"The fact that it's from Microsoft, you don't have many false positives, unlike products from other vendors might have."
"I like the fact that it has the ransomware solution in there. I'm glad that the ransomware solution is built into it. That's probably the biggest thing that I see in Microsoft Defender."
"What I found most valuable in Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is that it's out-of-the-box, which brings more value to the customer. The technical support for the product is also one of the best parts, because it's good, in terms of the product knowledge of the technical engineers."
"We found that because the endpoint devices are based on Microsoft Windows devices and Windows Defender is integrated with the foundation and the core layer, it makes it more integrated and more agile in terms of responding to any security threats or changes or development"
"It has Kusto Query Language (KQL), so we can use our own queries to find anything."
"Defender is stable, I haven't had any problems with viruses when using it, and it's easy to update."
"Defender for Endpoint provides good visibility into threats and has favorable threat intelligence."
"One of the valuable features of the solution is the small updates that keep my machine relatively clean from any infections."
"It is quick and easy to configure."
"The phone access scan stands out as the most valuable feature for me."
"The solution really focused on giving more security than an antivirus."
"Personally, I find the Game Mode of the Firewall very useful."
"This antivirus is regularly updated, and the updates can be scheduled."
"It gives us security for the users' mobiles and ends up protecting us in a significant way."
"The solution maintains reasonable scalability."
"It is easy to use through interfaces and easy to configure each of the customizations we created based on the characteristics that we wanted."
"The onboarding and deployment could be more user-friendly, and there is room to grow in some of the reports. I don't want them to be oversimplified or overly complex, but there is room for improvement in the reporting it can do. It's relatively minor."
"The solution could use improvement on the interface."
"In active mode, it's great that it gives you so much information, but it does record every keystroke so you have a lot of logs... that amount of data logging started to add up in the cost."
"If there were more template queries in the library, that would make it much easier. They could have basic things, like, "Where's the IP for this user?" or, "What file was downloaded from this user?" If there were more of those basic queries that would help."
"Sometimes the software doesn't work the way we expect it to, and in those cases, we can't communicate with a device because it may be infected."
"This solution needs to move beyond relying on virus definitions alone and protect the system using behavioral analysis of the processes that are running."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint could provide us with a more holistic approach, such as collaboration. They can provide us with an environment from where we can manage all the endpoints from one central location, such as overall management."
"I have accounts for administrators and corporate employees, but I also have accounts for students. I can't split these types of accounts. I need a separate configuration for both... I need to research how I can get alerts for only the administrative machines."
"The support is not always so effective."
"Perhaps the primary area for potential enhancement is to make it faster, ensuring a more seamless experience while maintaining robust security features."
"I would like it to be integrated with the Check Point centralization solution like Infinity Portal. It would be great to be able to manage it through the same website."
"ZoneAlarm should be a light application that does not take too much memory in mobile phones."
"They need to update and improve the features available for Mac."
"We'd like better performance of the network equipment. There are high-speed environments where an immediate response is required."
"They should release a single update with all the necessary characteristics to avoid being in a cycle of consecutive updates."
"Currently, the client is only available for the Windows Operating System but it would be good if it were released for Mac OS as well."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Anti-Malware Tools with 182 reviews while ZoneAlarm is ranked 15th in Anti-Malware Tools with 11 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0, while ZoneAlarm 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 ZoneAlarm writes "A highly stable solution that protects computers from viruses, spyware, and hackers". Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Trellix Endpoint Security and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas ZoneAlarm is most compared with Check Point Harmony Endpoint, Malwarebytes, F-Secure Total, Symantec Endpoint Security and Bitdefender GravityZone EDR. See our Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. ZoneAlarm 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.
