Compare Malwarebytes vs. Palo Alto Networks Traps

Malwarebytes is ranked 18th in Endpoint Protection for Business with 7 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Traps is ranked 5th in Endpoint Protection for Business with 12 reviews. Malwarebytes is rated 7.6, while Palo Alto Networks Traps is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Malwarebytes writes "The product is good at keeping threats out". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Traps writes "Its multi-layer approach helps my organization with anti-malware, exploit protection, and restrictions". Malwarebytes is most compared with Microsoft Windows Defender, Norton Security Premium and Cylance, whereas Palo Alto Networks Traps is most compared with Microsoft Windows Defender, Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) and CrowdStrike. See our Malwarebytes vs. Palo Alto Networks Traps report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Malwarebytes vs. Palo Alto Networks Traps and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
382,547 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
This solution helps us by providing central management of anti-malware and anti-exploit functionality.We have seen a decrease of approximately ninety percent in the number of events.The most valuable feature is its ability to customize for different groups.It gets the job done, and they are consistently updating it monthly.It comprehensively finds and removes malicious software.It allows us to have better knowledge of the way people use the tool and how we can improve their workflows.We don't have to spend any time remediating bad things happening: Not viruses nor ransomware.

Read more »

WildFire AI is the best option for this product.The one feature of Palo Alto Networks Traps that our organization finds most valuable is the App ID service.The stability of the solution is very good. We have about 100 users on it right now, and we use it twice a week.It's very stable. I've never experienced downtime for the ASM console or ASM core.We have a complete overview of all our PCs and it's very easy to handle and to use the interface. It has a lot of benefits for us.It blocks malicious files. It prevents attacks. It doesn't require many updates, it's a very light application.The most valuable features are the fact that it was running in the background and it would intercept any weird stuff, and the fact that it would send things directly to the cloud for sandboxing. It's quite practical.After deploying Traps, we saw the performance of the network improve by 65 to 70 percent.

Read more »

Cons
This solution reports far too many false positives!The product update capability needs to be improved.We experience a lot of false positives.They should make it faster, less taxing on the processor.There is room for improvement in the way it is deployed, in terms of being able to distribute it. Right now we have to get our hands on a machine to deploy it. It would be nice if there was an easier system.I would like to see integration with other vendors going forward.Every once in a while, it gets clobbered by updates from other places. I don't think this should happen.

Read more »

The dashboard is the area that needs to improve so that we can have the ability to drill down without having to go elsewhere to verify results.It automatically detects security issues. It should be able to protect our network devices while operating autonomously.The solution needs better reports. I think they should let the customer go in and customize the reports.In the next release, I would like to see more UI improvements. Their UI is a bit basic. When we are speaking about Palo Alto Networks they are the big company, so they can improve the UI a little bit. The UI, the reports, the log system can all be improved.Currently, if you use Palo Alto endpoint protection as the only solution it's very complicated to remove pre-existing threats.Managing the product should be easier.There are some false positives. What our guys would have liked is that it would have been easier to manipulate as soon as they found a false positive that they knew was a false positive. How to do so was not obvious. Some people complained about it. The interface, the ESM, is not user-friendly.There are some default policies which sometimes affect our applications and cause them to run around. In the hotel industry, we use a different type of data versus Oracle and SQL. By default, there are some policies which stop us from running properly. Because of this, the support level is also not that strong. We have to wait to get a results.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
We expect to pay $1,000 USD a month, depending on the number of users.Yearly, it is around $50 per client.

Read more »

This is an expensive solution.The price was fine.When we first bought it, it was a bit expensive, but it was worth it. The licensing was straightforward.I did PoCs on products called Cylance and CrowdStrike. Although, I consider these products and they were also good, when it come to cost and budgetary factors, Traps has been proven to be better than the other two products. It is quite cost-effective and delivers all the entire solution which we require.It is cost-effective compared to similar solutions. It fits for the small businesses through to the big businesses.The return on investment is from the user side because we have seen the performance of it increase the delivery time of the product if we are using too many web-based and on-premise applications. In indirect ways, we saw the return of investment in terms of performance and user satisfaction increase.It is "expensive" and flexible.Traps pays for itself within the first 16 months of a three-year subscription. This is attributed to OPEX savings, as security teams spent less time trying to identify and isolate malware for analysis as a result of a reduction in malware incidents, false positives, and breach avoidance.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection for Business solutions are best for your needs.
382,547 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
10,212
Comparisons
9,473
Reviews
7
Average Words per Review
199
Avg. Rating
7.6
Views
18,258
Comparisons
13,014
Reviews
11
Average Words per Review
747
Avg. Rating
8.4
Top Comparisons
Compared 8% of the time.
Also Known As
Cyvera
Learn
Malwarebytes
Palo Alto Networks
Overview

Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection is delivered via Malwarebytes cloud-based endpoint management platform, is an advanced threat prevention solution for endpoints that uses a layered approach with multiple detection techniques. Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection employs multiple techniques to identify and defend against attacks at all stages of the attack chain using a highly effective mix of signature-less and matching-technology layers working both pre- and post-execution. Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection leverages our Linking Engine technology to remove all traces of infections and related artifacts - not just the primary threat payload. Its Endpoint Protection technology reduces the vulnerability surface, making the endpoint more resilient.

Traps replaces legacy antivirus and secures endpoints with a multi-method prevention approach that blocks malware and exploits, both known and unknown, before they compromise endpoints such as laptops, desktops and servers.

Offer
Learn more about Malwarebytes
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks Traps
Sample Customers
Knutson ConstructionCBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Top Industries
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company22%
Mining And Metals Company22%
Government11%
Financial Services Firm11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company27%
Comms Service Provider13%
Media Company7%
Construction Company6%
Find out what your peers are saying about Malwarebytes vs. Palo Alto Networks Traps and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
382,547 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection for Business 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.
Sign Up with Email