We performed a comparison between Elastic Security and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"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."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"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"
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"ELK is open-source, and it will give you the framework you need to build everything from scratch."
"Elastic Security is very customizable, and the dashboards are very easy to build."
"I like the indexing of the logs."
"The visualization is very good."
"The stability of the solution is good."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Its flexibility is most valuable. We can have a number of scenarios, and we can get logs from anything. If we know how to use Logstash, we can tweak it in many ways. This makes the logging search on Elastic very easy."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability. We are in Indonesia, more engineers understand Elastic Security here. So it is easier to scale and also develop. In features, the discovery to query all the logs is very important to us. It is very easy, especially with the query function and the feature to generate alerts and create tools. Sometimes we use the alert security dashboard to monitor our clients."
"I think that all the features are valuable for our environment."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the firewall, the IPS, and the patch deployment."
"I like that Kaspersky isn't heavy."
"The implementation and integration are easy."
"Some of the most valuable features are the security and the stability, which are great. There are some imperfections, but everything is fine. In general, I think it's one of the best solutions."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is its deployment. It is easy to centrally deploy. You can deploy it on the Administration Console then deploy it to the different endpoint machines without specifically deploying it manually on each machine. Its deployment is really user friendly."
"The security is very good, compared to some other products."
"We used to have a lot of phishing attacks and all these kind of things for end-users so we decided that we needed endpoint security. We evaluated some solutions and found that Kaspersky is the most appropriate in terms of endpoint security and the speed of the user machine. The encryption is a major factor from our end."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"The solution is not stable."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"The price of this product could be improved, especially the additional costs. I would also like to see better-quality graphics."
"Better integration with third-party APMs would be really good."
"The solution needs to be more reactive to investigations. We need to be able to detect and prevent any attacks before it can damage our infrastructure. Currently, this solution doesn't offer that."
"In terms of improvement, there could be more automation in responding to and evaluating detections."
"The process of designing dashboards is a little cumbersome in Kibana. Unless you are an expert, you will not be able to use it. The process should be pretty straightforward. The authentication feature is what we are looking for. We would love to have a central authentication system in the open-source edition without the need for a license or an enterprise license. If they can give at least a simple authentication system within a company. In a large organization, authentication is very essential for security because logs can contain a lot of confidential data. Therefore, an authentication feature for who accesses it should be there."
"There is room for improvement in the Kibana dashboard and in the asset management for the program."
"Elastic Security's maintenance is hard and its scalability is a challenge. There are complications in scaling and upgrading. The solution needs to also provide periodic upgrade checks."
"There should be a simulation environment to check whether my Elastic implementation is functioning perfectly fine. Other solutions have their own Android and iOS applications that I can install on my mobile so that I am continuously connected to the SIEM."
"I'd like to see them improve encryption and remote management in the future. Kaspersky could also improve its scanning technology. Other solutions have adopted machine learning and deep learning, but Kaspersky still uses signature-based scanning."
"It's grown more expensive and customers are not happy about it."
"It would be beneficial to have more robust cloud management capabilities for Endpoint."
"The company needs to keep developing more security measures to help keep its customers safe. If they could keep adding to security features, it would be ideal."
"We need a more complete Mobile Device Management (MDM) system."
"The application running speed consumes that of RAM, so performance speed is an issue."
"This solution used a lot of memory and GPU; it would be nice if this could be reduced."
"The GUI of the product is too basic, making it an area where improvements are required."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
Elastic Security is ranked 16th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 59 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 11th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 111 reviews. Elastic Security is rated 7.6, while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Elastic Security writes "A stable and scalable tool that provides visibility along with the consolidation of logs to its users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas 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. See our Elastic Security vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.