We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Panda Adaptive Defense 360 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."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The most valuable aspect is information, specifically the automatic investigation of packages."
"It's really stable. I've used a lot of stuff, a lot of products, like ESET and Kaspersky. None of them are comparable with this one. This one is much better."
"There are a couple of features, such as isolating the devices or connecting the device and connecting live response."
"One of the main features is the solution is very light on resources and we do not have any problems with it."
"The most valuable features are the Windows Firewall and the regular virus definition updates. These features are very helpful and have helped to improve our security."
"Defender for Endpoint is a robust solution that works well out-of-the-box."
"File protection is the most valuable feature. Antivirus security on the Level OS, Microsoft Defender, and Microsoft Guard for 2019."
"I like the process visibility. This ability to visualize how something was executed is valuable, and the fact that Defender ATP is also linked to the threat intelligence that they have is also valuable. So, even if you have something that doesn't have a conventional signature, the fact that you get this strange execution means that you can detect things that are normally not visible."
"It's very easy to deploy, we don't have any problem or issues. It's most full automatic. It basically takes the assumption that everything is supposed to be a suspect; files, processes, URL accesses, and so on."
"Their remote management (RMM) is very good."
"The protection from malware is the most important feature. It has some endpoint information about the vehicle of the virus, malware, etc. It is also stable and easy to install, and they also provide good technical support."
"The most valuable features of Panda Security Adaptive Defense are the useful hardware information it provides, light on resources, controllable from the console, remote scan functionality, and the blocking of a lot of URL malware."
"The feature I find most valuable is the advance search engine."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that I like the tool's UI, ease of management, ease of making reports, and the ability to export information easily."
"Panda Security solution has a feature to block any unknown process and that is what is best about it."
"It allows us to stop activation windows."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"Detections could be improved."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"It's not easy to create special allowances for certain groups of users. It can be a little heavy-handed in some areas where Microsoft has decided to lock a feature out, meaning they make it hard to make an exception... One company we work with needed to use about 20 different thumb drives for about 20 users. To make that exception for them was very difficult. In fact, you can't really make an exception. But what you can do is allow them to use it and, while it will still alert, you can actually suppress those alerts."
"Something that is unique to Microsoft is its licensing model. When you go out and you buy McAfee or Symantec, you know what you're getting out of the box, but with Microsoft, often, when you're looking to achieve a certain set of capabilities, those capabilities are spread across different products. You might try to do something you could do with CrowdStrike, but then find out that you also need to purchase Microsoft Defender for Identity or Microsoft Defender for Azure. You realize that when they talk about what they can offer within the Microsoft platform, it's really the suite of investments. So, sometimes, you may find yourself buying Defender for Endpoint thinking that it matches CrowdStrike, but then you find that Microsoft really needs to sell you something else. One plus one will equal three, but when you have a very concise platform, such as CrowdStrike, you know what you're going to get."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is not as robust, and you cannot customize it much, so that's a challenge."
"I would like to see integrations with other products, such as Spunk and other CM solutions. That would create possibilities for me, and for a SOC, to consolidate all events in an older console, not one provided by Microsoft but provided by a third party, and use it to create more insights."
"Updates are not coming out of preview quickly enough and it is holding back on the development of the product."
"One thing that was lacking in Defender was web filtering. Its web filtering wasn't as comprehensive. Sophos was a little bit better than Defender for blocking URLs or installing programs."
"The scanning is slow when it is working with incoming emails."
"The file scanning has room for improvement. Many people use macros within their files, so there should be a mechanism that helps us to scan them for malicious payloads."
"I would like to see better data protection."
"They need to expand their offering of add-ons to enhance capabilities further."
"The solution should have additional endpoint protection."
"Needs a better way to scan the hardware to detect whether it's valid."
"The Linux installation is performed on the command line and they need a package installer for that operating system."
"The implementation was difficult."
"Panda Security Adaptive Defense can improve by including the intrusion and prevention system not only on their most expensive platform. Additionally, it blocks software that is legitimate from users. They complain and then we have to manually unblock the software, by hash, or we receive a message. Some of the prevention features are not available and this might cause us to need a separate firewall or something to protect the company."
"It needs some improvements in the DNS security feature. Currently, it does not have full DNS security. It only has semi-DNS security, which can be improved. It is an important feature for us, and it would be really good if they can improve the DNS security feature. Our group has some plans to change to Cisco AMP, which has features such as DNS, Umbrella. We are trying to learn about Cisco AMP and compare it with Panda."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 182 reviews while Panda Adaptive Defense 360 is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 25 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0, while Panda Adaptive Defense 360 is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Panda Adaptive Defense 360 writes "Managing multiple machines is a pain, but support is top notch". Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Fortinet FortiClient, whereas Panda Adaptive Defense 360 is most compared with ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Bitdefender GravityZone EDR and Malwarebytes. See our Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. Panda Adaptive Defense 360 report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.