Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert Reviews

I mainly use Kaspersky EDR for BIOS protection.

EDR's most valuable feature is its basic protection from malware and viruses.

Kaspersky EDR lacks protection from recent ransomware. Because of this, we're looking into switching from EDR to another security solution.

I've been using Kaspersky EDR for two to three years.

EDR is stable.

EDR is scalable.

The initial setup was easy - I would rate the ease as four out of five.

The license for EDR costs about 1,000 pesos per user. I would rate the pricing as four out of five.

I would rate Kaspersky EDR as eight out of ten.

We use this solution mainly for protection, but we also have another solution we use for this.

The content filtering options are good.

It consumes many system resources, and there should be more EDR details.

We have been using this solution for one year, and we are using the new version. It is deployed on-premises.

The solution is stable. Regarding detection, sometimes it consumes a lot of system resources.

It is scalable. We have not scaled it yet, but our customers use Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response, and they have not had any issues scaling.

We have not needed technical support. Instead, we deal with our cases and use Google to solve our problems.

We prefer CrowdStrike to Kaspersky.

It is not easy to set up. I believe the cloud version is easier to implement. We only deployed it on three computers, which didn't take much time. It was a bit of a struggle.

It is cheap compared to CrowdStrike. It costs $20 per user.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten. Regarding advice, Kaspersky should work with a signature-less solution only because it's better and does not consume too many system resources. They should not use indicators because some new next-generation antivirus vendors are currently not using IOCs. Instead, they use IOA, which is better. In addition, Kaspersky could be GDPR compliant.

Clients are using this product to protect their desktops and laptops and to respond adequately when some vulnerabilities are detected as exploited.

We like the automated change of policies, given some scenarios. It is wonderful. You can rely upon your automated policies being activated if you need to. If you are under attack, or maybe some ransomware is spreading across your network, and you want your endpoints to become more secure given that threat, you get good protection. It's maybe the most important feature of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response.

It's easy to set up. 

The solution is scalable.

It's easy to manage and monitor the endpoints. 

I would like better integration with other products. For example, I would like to have another view in SolarWinds or Datadog. Integration is not easy. I'd like it to be simplified. 

We do not need any additional features. 

The business plan maybe could be improved. They need to change the way they sell the product. They could be better friends with their partners. A partner is not somebody who sells this product. It is usually somebody who manages this product for the end user or the end company that is predicting the assets. The role that a partner plays in this interaction is very important. They need to work to build that relationship to benefit the solution and the client. They should also offer better margins.

We've been dealing with the solution since 2019. It's been around three years. 

It is a very stable solution. The most important thing about stability is not if the product runs or stops running, it is the time window you need to be prepared for new threats. They offer good protection, which makes the product very stable. Kaspersky's usually the first in distributing the indicators of compromise of the newest threats.

The solution can scale well.  It is easy to deploy and manage a large number of endpoints running just a few tasks. You are very aware of what is happening with the threats in your institution. There's a lot of visibility.

Technical support can be improved. When you need support, when you call for support, and you present the evidence in a ticket, they always come back with more questions. They ask you for more evidence, and you have to go and collect it. You get to a point where you want to say, "Oh, just forget it, I don't need more support from you. You always ask me for more, more, more data." 

I would like to see a solution. I don't want to do all of this legwork and not get any help. 

Neutral

The console is very easy. The deployment is easy as well. If you have an active directory or something like that, or if you have previously installed the Kaspersky network agent, it's quite simple. If not, even if you don't have any of those, maybe if you have some software policy to deploy over your assets, it should also be easy. Otherwise, you have to go endpoint by endpoint running the agents. That can take time.

The maintenance is pretty straightforward. If I have 5,000 endpoints, I need one engineer to handle the console installation for, maybe a week's worth of work. The endpoints could take two or three people to deploy in the company. If you can centralize the deployment, it will only take two or three days for one engineer to handle the setup.

I don't have any details in regard to ROI. 

We are a partner of Kaspersky.

We always work with the latest version of the solution.

It's a wonderful product if you have a proper partner to handle it. If you let the product run by itself, by itself, it won't protect you. You need someone on this product with a hand on it every day, checking policies and seeing how it works. That's the only way to be protected from threats.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

We are Kaspersky partners and I'm an endpoint specialist. 

The major features I really like are behavior detection and the firmware scanner. The solution also has great threat prevention. Machine learning is also very good as is the real-time protection. The best thing is you can also get a vulnerability report. There are a couple of other features EDR has that are not available in other solutions and that includes the system-level device for controlling the UI which enables control of applications at the location level. There is also the IoC scanner that Symantec doesn't have. Finally, the threat intelligence portal gives me global visibility into threats and their interconnections which is great. 

The one thing Symantec has that EDR lacks is device control. I think Kaspersky has to increase its features when it comes to antivirus control. I'd like to see an increase in the 30-day retention period. 

I've been using this particular solution for 3 years but have used other Kaspersky solutions for over 15 years. 

The solution is stable. 

The scalability is good. Scaling is a matter of creating a new server and replicating all the data. It's not a big issue to do the migration or to upgrade hardware. We currently have around 20,000 users with that number increasing every day. 

The technical support is really bad. They have three models of support and if you have the regular level of support, it can take days to get a response. It forces you to pay extra to get premium support, and then you hear from them within two hours. 

The initial setup is straightforward. If you're deploying for customers then the deployment time will depend on the size of the organization and the level of preparation that has been done in advance. If you have 10,000 users, deployment will take about a day if everything is ready.  

Licensing costs are very reasonable. This is not an expensive solution. 

There are some features lacking in this solution and if I compare it with CrowdStrike or Microsoft, they are both better solutions than Kaspersky. I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We primarily use the product as a security solution. We use it to protect the company's inner resources to ensure secure access to endpoints by only authorized users. We make sure only the right person can access the right resource.

The product is very easy to use. 

The solution is stable and reliable. 

It can scale well. 

The solution is expensive. It would be ideal if they could lower the costs. 

I've been using the solution for two years.

This is a stable solution. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

This is a scalable product. We can expand it as needed. 

We have around 100 users on the product.

As we increase personnel, we will increase usage. 

Typically, our technical teams deal with issues. I've never dealt with technical support from Kaspersky directly.

We did not use a different solution in the past.

The initial setup was handled by our technical team. I was not a part of the initial implementation process. 

We had an internal technical team handle the setup. I don't have many details about the process. 

We pay a yearly fee for the licensing of the product. We find it to be expensive, however, we need to use it as we need the security it provides. 

We are using the updated version of the solution, however, I'm not sure which version number we are on. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users. 

I would rate the product eight out of ten. We are happy with its capabilities in general. 

I'm the head of our IT department. 

I like that Kaspersky provides us with web and DNS protection over https.

Everything is automatic on Kaspersky but it would be great if they could add a feature for examining suspicious files. I'd like the solution to offer additional protection. 

I've been using this solution for one year. 

The solution is stable, we haven't had any problems. 

In our organization, each department has its own antivirus so scalability is not relevant to us. We only have four users in our department. 

I haven't needed to contact technical support. 

I previously used Avast. I switched to Kaspersky because it seemed to work more quickly detecting suspicious files without affecting our work. 

The initial setup is straightforward. We carried out the deployment in-house and it took about a week. We have a manager and a tech person dealing with the solution. We're in a small network environment and we don't need much. 

The solution is free for now. 

I rate this solution 10 out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for our servers. It's for security.

We enjoy the solution as, when we are online we are secure. It's easy to use and not too heavy. It doesn't slow down any machines at all. 

The product is quite stable.

It's scalable enough for us.

The product is straightforward to set up. 

There could be more secure.

The prices can go down a little bit.

I've used the solution for quite some time. It might have been six years at this point. 

It's a stable product. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

We find the product to be scalable. You can expand it if you need to.

We have five people using it in our organization. 

We've never contacted technical support. We've never had an issue. It works the way we need it to and we've never had a problem.

We started with Kaspersky. We didn't use a different solution previously.

The initial setup was straightforward. We are a tech company and therefore we found it pretty simple. Even a layman, however, can do the installation. It's not complex or difficult. We deployed it with our engineers. 

We handled the setup ourselves. We didn't need the help of any consultants or integrators. 

We'd like the pricing to be lower. It can get a bit pricey.

We pay for an annual license.

As a cloud solution, we're always on the latest version. We update it automatically on the cloud.

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. There's room for improvement, however, we've largely been happy with it. 

I primarily use Endpoint for protection against viruses.

The most valuable feature is Endpoint's management.

The main problem with Endpoint is that Kaspersky is a Russian company, and my clients prefer not to use it.

I've been using this solution for ten years.

Endpoint is stable.

Kaspersky's technical support is good.

The initial setup is easy, taking no more than a week.

Endpoint's pricing is good, especially compared to expensive solutions like Sophos.

Endpoint is a good technical solution because it provides granular control over devices. I would give it a rating of eight out of ten.