We performed a comparison between HP Wolf Security and Kaspersky Total Security 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."NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"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 price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"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."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"The isolation feature is the most important because it prevents attacks."
"I use HP Wolf Security to add a layer of safety, especially for laptops operating in various environments."
"The most valuable feature is the process isolation because it simply stops malware from infecting the machines."
"It has prevented thousands of potential threats by encapsulating them within its own vSentry container, thus providing overall protection and integrity of the operating system."
"Our overall security posture has absolutely improved as a result of adding Bromium to our security stack. We continue to have less user impact through a significantly reduced amount of malware infections. It's become a non-event."
"Now, instead of us having to go through that analysis, they actually give us a monthly report that shows us: "Here's what you got hit with, here's what would have happened, here are the forensics behind the attack," and, obviously, Bromium stopped it."
"We've been able to isolate and prevent malicious code from external email attachments and from downloaded internet files. Those are the two big areas that have really made an impact."
"The feature that stands out the most is that when someone clicks on a link in an email... [if] that link is malicious and it has some malware or keylogger attached to it, when it opens up in that Bromium virtualized browser, there's no chance of it actually being on the machine and running, because as soon as they click that "X" in the upper right-hand side of the browser, everything just vanishes. That is an added plus."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it can be centrally managed, allowing users to know what is happening and what can be expected in the systems."
"I find the solution to be very stable in terms of security and protection of the data."
"Kaspersky Total Security has valuable reporting features regarding visibility for trusted sites and safe browsing."
"It is a stable product."
"The protection has been top-notch, according to our use case and ISP."
"Kaspersky is reliable because it checks everything before I want to log in."
"The solution is useful for protecting laptops."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"Detections could be improved."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"When you deploy, not only is the user asked to reboot their computer, they are also asked to wait for 20 minutes while it sits there and initializes. It definitely impacts the end-user. It takes time away from their day."
"After a major release, there's always a lot of "dust settling." You have to work through all those issues and then you're fine for a while. The problem is, it's stable, it's fine, until the next major release comes out. Then you go back into the cycle again of uncertainty, instability, working through issues until they have patched and remediated all the problems that you're having. It's not unlike any other vendor though"
"I did not find this to be an out-of-the-box solution, it required planning and alignment across many groups."
"The tool behaves differently when I ported to Windows 11."
"Initially, when we came in contact with Bromium a few years ago, it had a nice threat analyst, or a LAVA Pop, which is what they used to call it. Once it detected malware, it would show us the malware's path... I don't see that on the computers now. We only get to see that in the console. I would like to still see that on the individual machines because when we go out to look at a machine, we don't necessarily have access to the console."
"Reporting is one of the shortcomings of the product. We do mine the data that's in there from a forensics perspective... It becomes very difficult because you have to spend a lot of time digging through the volumes of data. Reporting is absolutely the biggest shortcoming."
"Room for improvement would be keeping up with the rate of change, specifically on Windows platforms. There are a lot of updates that come out for Microsoft Windows operating systems and the Bromium product needs to be able to keep up quickly with those updates and all the browser updates that are coming out. It's hard to do, but that's really where they need to be more responsive because we end up with problems and then we have to call support to get patches, etc."
"They need to improve the compatibility with other applications and its stability. It works well with attacks, but it doesn't work well with all software on the clients. There is a lot of troubleshooting and a lot of things that need to be tuned to make it work and not break things."
"There is room for improving security."
"The solution’s stability could be improved"
"The solution’s email protection area should be improved."
"Kaspersky Total Security is an expensive solution, and its pricing could be improved."
"There could be an option to upgrade the license online without necessarily installing it physically in the system."
"When you get the license number, there isn't a clear section in the program's interface that leads you to renew your license. You have to look and search a lot about it."
"Regarding improvement, Kaspersky has a slightly larger system footprint, leading to a 5-10% performance slowdown compared to when I wasn't using Kaspersky."
"The solution's automation capabilities is an area where certain improvements are required."
HP Wolf Security is ranked 47th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 8 reviews while Kaspersky Total Security is ranked 29th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 20 reviews. HP Wolf Security is rated 7.8, while Kaspersky Total Security is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of HP Wolf Security writes "Adds a layer of safety, especially for laptops operating in various environments". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Total Security writes "Highly-efficient solution for process optimization ". HP Wolf Security is most compared with Norton Small Business, Bitdefender Total Security, Microsoft Defender for Business, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Avast Business Hub, whereas Kaspersky Total Security is most compared with Norton Small Business and Bitdefender Total Security. See our HP Wolf Security vs. Kaspersky Total Security 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.