We performed a comparison between BigFix and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business 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."The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"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"
"This is stable and scalable."
"It is stable and scalable."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"We are able to go from patching thousands of machines by twenty to thirty people to one person."
"It is for multiple use cases. A lot of people are looking at it just for security, and that's really endpoint security. The endpoint management part of it in terms of being able to constantly do patching for Windows, Unix, macOS, Cloud, Raspberry, VMware, and all Linux flavors is important, and they are very good at that. They have support for virtually every OS on the market."
"It allows for visibility into the OT, the industrial environments, that didn't exist before which is a big piece and has benefited my organization. Second, the speed at which people can patch is night and day versus SCCM scan or another similar solution."
"The architecture for patching and the 100% correct reporting makes BigFix stand apart from other solutions."
"It is user-friendly."
"All the vendor patches are synchronized automatically."
"The most valuable feature for us is the ability to manage TWS, the relevance is really what sets it apart. Also, using it as a software deployment tool is the key for us."
"Vulnerability scanning and patch automation."
"The price per endpoint is excellent."
"The interface is friendly."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business detects malware and is easy to configure."
"It is very efficient. I like its simplicity."
"It's excellent at detecting viruses."
"It helps to improve our security for our mobile and VMware infrastructure. The remote tasks are great."
"I like that we can use it across all the platforms like PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, and all systems for protection. I also like that we can use it for different cloud sessions and different unified systems. It's available on all the vulnerability assessments including, web filtering, email filtering, test protection, anomaly control, and management. There are more than enough benefits available on Kaspersky."
"The initial setup is very simple."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"The support needs improvement."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"I would like to see more emphasis on using the web console, to have the same power as the full fat client console that they do they now. It's a lighter way to log in and it would be faster for our operators to do their work. The console tends to take a long time for a large number of clients."
"Its pricing should be improved. It is too costly."
"License management isn't quite as easy as it should be to deal with the licensing. You need to take the server down to import the new licenses which I find to be annoying."
"I'd definitely like to see additional feature parody in the web UI versus the console. There are certain things that you can only do in the console and they're very cumbersome to do, like secure parameters, for example. That's definitely something that has a wide degree of utility but it needs to be easier to surface. At this particular juncture between the transition, between the legacy console and the web UI, it's hard to justify dealing with the cumbersome aspects of the legacy console when theoretically everything's been through the web UI."
"I would like to see different types of reporting and the ability to integrate closer with the cloud."
"Sometimes the workstations communicate back to the BigFix server two or three days in a week or something similar. Sometimes there can be a delay reporting back to the server for a variety of reasons, such as users turning their computer off when they go home. When the user comes back and turns the computer back on BigFix needs to synchronize and sometimes it can take some time, approximately one week. The communication between the agent and the server should be faster, there is room for improvement in this area."
"BigFix is actually a little bit on the expensive side in Turkey because of the dollar's exchange rate in our currency."
"The scalability of the web UI product doesn't scale to the size that we need for our implementation so it needs to expand. I would also like to see the capability to develop on the back of the web UI capability. There are lots of web features and integrations that we could do with web UI that it would be nice to be able to put on top of what's already there, rather than waiting for IBM to develop what we need."
"We've found that sometimes the solution is not doing its job in detecting some malware."
"We are having some troubles because some American companies we work with don't want to work with Kaspersky."
"It needs more computer resources. They should have more anti-spam features."
"Currently, it doesn't have a cloud option. This is something that they should look into going forward."
"I might have the best product in the market. But if it's not properly configured, then I'm losing many of these features. I'm not getting the most out of them. And this is actually one of the biggest challenges that we're facing."
"We find that the solution uses up too much RAM and can slow down machines."
"The initial setup is complex."
"It's grown more expensive and customers are not happy about it."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
BigFix is ranked 14th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 91 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 11th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 110 reviews. BigFix is rated 8.6, while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of BigFix writes "Very stable and easy to deploy with excellent patch compliance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". BigFix is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Tanium and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, whereas Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Fortinet FortiClient, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security. See our BigFix vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business 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.