I expected Active Response's user interface to be much more analytical.
I still haven't evaluated the ransomware features because everybody implements anti-ransomware differently. You need to see these features in action because everyone seems to have their way of doing it. That's something I still would like to evaluate.

It's still not lightweight enough and not as light as they claim to be with the McAfee area of a next-gen AV. They can do some improvements along that line. 

There needs to be some improvement around the white-listing or black-listing.

The product could improve aspects around the removal of blacklisted applications, et cetera. 

This was an exercise to centralize the AV cell, and that's how we ended up upgrading. The truth, however, is that I was really looking for something much more advanced with user behavior analytics and some AI features that the other competitor's next-gen AV does offer. It is okay for what it's doing now, however, it's not the ultimate software.

There are some components on the cloud that should also reside in the on-prem deployment models but don't. They should ensure they are doing parallel development for cloud and on-prem when they are doing R&D. 

While the product is good, we are currently facing support issues. We are working with McAfee on that front.

When it comes to technical support, we face slowdown issues in respect of the EDR with some of our machines.

The consumption of resources should be lower. What I mean is that the product requires a lot of memory. Cloud-based products are much better by comparison.