We performed a comparison between Elastic Security and Webroot Business Endpoint Protection based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Log Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."ELK Logstash is easy and fast, at least for the initial setup with the out of box uses."
"We've found the initial setup to be quite straightforward."
"Elastic has a lot of beats, such as Winlogbeat and Filebeat. Beats are the agents that have to be installed on the terminals to send the data. When we install beats or Elastic agents on every terminal, they don't overload the terminals. In other SIEM solutions such as Splunk or QRadar, when beats or agents are installed on endpoints, they are very heavy for the terminals. They consume a lot of power of the terminals, whereas Elastic agents hardly consume any power and don't overload the terminals."
"Elastic Security is very easy to adapt."
"It's simple and easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to collect authentication information from service providers."
"What customers found most valuable in Elastic Security feature-wise is the search capability, in particular, the way of writing the search query and the speed of searching for results."
"Just the ability to do a lot more than just up-down is nice, which a lot of people take for granted."
"The solution has many features. It is very easy to define and set the policies based on the user groups, it does not take up a lot of resources in operation, and has provided us with a good track record of protection."
"The most valuable features of the solution include the endpoint navigation protection, the protection related to the EMS service, as well as the control and the cloud integration capabilities."
"Auto-Remediation"
"We've not had any issues with scalability. If an organization needs to expand, they can do so quite easily."
"Valuable features include good scanning, very light footprint and management console that the client can access and (just as important) in which I can see status of groups of computers (I am a consultant, IT role)."
"Low performance requirements."
"The traffic security monitoring, traffic application access feature called the agent, the main feature which is the endpoint security feature are the ones I found valuable. And it also had the in branch security in kind of SD WAN, good three hundred and sixty protection. It is specific and there is ease of deployment also present."
"Doesn't consume resources or affect the computer performance at all."
"The interface could be more user friendly because it is sometimes hard to deal with."
"Elastic has one problem. In the past, Elastic Security was free. Now, they currently only offer the basic license or a certain period of time."
"We had issues with scalability. Logstash was not scaling and aggregation was getting delayed. We moved to Fluentd making our stack from ELK to EFK."
"With Elastic, you have to build the use cases for the specific requirement. Other products have a simple integration and more use cases to integrate out-of-the-box solutions for SIEM."
"With Elastic Security, the challenge arises from the fact that there is a learning curve in relation to queries and understanding the query language provided to extract usable data."
"The solution's query building is not that intuitive compared to other solutions."
"Sometimes, the solution isn't the easiest to use."
"I think because we are a cybersecurity company, the thing that can be improved is the prebuilt tools, especially quality. Compared to its competitor, they still have fewer prebuilt security rules. Elastic Security, in terms of generating alerts, cannot group the same products into one another. Even though the alerts are the same, they still generate them one by one. So, it is very noisy in our dashboard. I would like the Elastic Security admin to group all the same alarms into one alarm so that our dashboard is not noisy."
"Usually, when it comes to reliability, McAfee and Norton are at 99 percent. Webroot's percentage is lower. It is 94% reliable in terms of what it catches, but you're trading that percentage for customer satisfaction because your computer isn't being constantly told that it just blocked something, or it just did something."
"We need to have a stronger defense against CryptoLock and other attackers."
"I believe that Webroot Business Endpoint Protection should offer a more modern UI."
"The solution could improve by providing better ransomware protection."
"Unified threat management (UTM) integration."
"Webroot is very reactionary. It waits until the threat is active within memory to try and detect it. They need better pre-execution detection and prevention."
"I'm not happy with Webroot Business Endpoint Protection, for only one reason. It seems that it slows down my interface when I'm doing programming in Microsoft Access, tremendously."
"Reporting system could be improved."
More Webroot Business Endpoint Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
Elastic Security is ranked 5th in Log Management with 58 reviews while Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is ranked 34th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 30 reviews. Elastic Security is rated 7.6, while Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is rated 8.2. 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 Webroot Business Endpoint Protection writes "Lightweight and not hard to set up however, does not offer good reporting". Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Huntress, Intercept X Endpoint and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Elastic Security vs. Webroot Business Endpoint Protection report.
We monitor all Log Management 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.
