ESET Endpoint Security Review

Good spam protection and integration, but the deployment process needs to be improved


What is our primary use case?

We use this solution for security and email spam protection.

How has it helped my organization?

Once the initial setup and configuration is complete, you just have to sit back and monitor.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the antispam module, which comes in the bundle. It is very helpful and integrates with the local Outlook, or email, client.

The HIPS is another good feature.

What needs improvement?

The initial setup needs improvement because you have to create quite a few policies, and sometimes it misses machines when it comes to discovery. This means that you have to manually deploy on some.

Seamless discovery of endpoints would be an improvement.

Technical support can be improved.

I would like to see better deployment features in the next release.

If they had an agentless version, where for example it is integrated with Active Directory and there is no agent, then that would be an improvement. I don't know if it is possible, but you just discover the machines, deploy the software, and that's it. It would save a lot of time when it comes to installing the agents, especially if you have, for example, one thousand machines. It is for this reason that I would not recommend ESET on a larger scale.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of this solution is good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I have not had to scale this solution, but my understanding is that you just enter a license and that's it.

How are customer service and technical support?

The availability of technical support is less than I would like. Out of five times that I call, they may be available two or three times. Overall, I would rate their support a seven out of ten. Certainly, this can be improved.

If, however, you do catch them, then the support is good. The engineer will help you.

If you previously used a different solution, which one did you use and why did you switch?

I have worked with Cylance. It does not have the problem where some machines are missed during the initial setup and discovery process, but it suffers from having too many false positives. I think it is related to how it works, based on machine learning technology. This means that you have to create a lot of exceptions, time and time again, especially for applications that are crucial.

How was the initial setup?

Recently, the setup of this solution is easy, but the configuration is time-consuming.

You have to make policies, and it is not a simple process. There are three steps involved, where first you have to deploy the agent, and then you have to create a policy to remove any existing antivirus software. A reboot is required following this step. After the reboot, you install the product and then you have to reboot again.

These steps are tedious and time-consuming, and really what I didn't like about this solution.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

If I were in an environment that required a large-scale deployment then I would choose another solution over ESET.

What other advice do I have?

I would not recommend this solution on a larger scale. To improve, they need to cut down the number of steps required for deployment. They also have to increase the availability of technical support.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Add a Comment
Guest
Sign Up with Email