Five years ago, I looked at Micro Focus, ArcSight, and maybe some best-of-breed UEBA and EDR solutions, like CrowdStrike and Intercept. Business considerations led me to choose Defender. 

Security people will go for the top security solution, but executives are worried about enterprise and return on investment. They push for Microsoft security products because they've got Azure and Windows. I now agree that it also makes sense from a security point of view,

We are using CrowdStrike, Palo Alto XDR, and a lot of different products. The client using CrowdStrike may have moved to Defender based on the cost.

As far as I know, my organization used Defender for Cloud Apps for a long time and Symantec for service. Symantec is configurable, but it isn't always quick enough to deal with threats, as it has different quarantining methods.

I installed Darktrace for a data center and prefer to work with MS security products.

I've worked with all the major antivirus and endpoint protection vendors, including Splunk, CrowdStrike, Sophos, Norton, and McAfee. Microsoft's advantage is its integration with the operating system, ease of deployment, and support for the 365 Cloud experience. It makes everything easier to deploy, maintain and manage. It comes down to cost and integration. We realize cost savings because it's integrated into the E5 licensing product.

I previously utilized SentinelOne, Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response, Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response, and Carbon Black CB Defense. However, I find Microsoft Defender for Endpoint to be more user-friendly than the other solutions. The information provided by Defender is valuable, and the deployment process is easy. Additionally, it offers several valuable features.

On the endpoint side, I've used Sophos and Symantec. We switched because of the integration between all different securities.

We were using Symantec Antivirus three years ago. When we were using Symantec Antivirus, users used to report that certain popups are there, and what should they do with them. They used to ask, "Is my system infected?" They used to panic on seeing those pop-ups. Most of them were unnecessary and would say that they need to have admin access or a particular software is trying to open a port. Because we are into development, it is a requirement of a developer to open certain ports and to make that application listen on certain ports. Such requirements were very difficult to configure in Symantec. It was difficult to make it understand that these ports are going to be used by developers, and they are going to be opened, and it is not a virus activity. Sometimes, the temporary folder of users used to get infected, and it used to give hundreds and hundreds of pop-ups. We didn't know how to close all those pop-ups in one go because they were not in a group. Imagine sitting and closing a hundred pop-ups. We had to click the Close button on each and every pop-up.

With Microsoft Defender, we can control notifications. We can tell which notifications should go to the users and which shouldn't go to the users and should be forwarded to the admin central console. In terms of user experience, users are happier with less annoyance of pop-ups that they used to get with Symantec Antivirus. They do not need to know each and everything that is going at the backend. Only the admins need to know certain things, and they should know them. With Microsoft Defender, users don't even get to know that they have an antivirus solution on their system because they never get any irritating pop-ups or notifications or slowness of the system. We configure everything from the backend, and we are managing their systems from one console, which is the biggest plus point of Microsoft Defender.

We currently have an MSP in place, which is a managed service provider, who manages all our IT support, service desk, and desktop support functions. They had already purchased an antivirus subscription for the organization when I joined the organization, and it was a fairly basic one. Our biggest problem was that it does not have any SIEM integration. 

When we decided to go down the route of having a SOC or MDR service, we couldn't ingest the logs from the antivirus platform into their SIEM. That is when the hunt started for a new AV service.

I wouldn't say the user impact has changed on top of the AV product that we had before.

We previously used Splunk but switched to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint because of the cost and smoother operation.

The history would be a Symantec product, but I do not remember what it was. Then we went up through Azure ATP to Microsoft EDR. 

We did not have another EDR solution. We started with Azure.

I'm also familiar with Trend Micro, which is similar. However, Defender is specific to Microsoft.

The company does use more than one solution as well. 

The company evaluated other solutions in parallel and in tandem with it. Our trajectory shifted slightly during COVID-19, so we explored that more. We tried ESET and SentinelOne for a while. But those are apples-to-oranges comparisons. Defender for Endpoint is geared toward common reporting,  notifications, and backend stuff, whereas SentinelOne is designed to lock machines down. It has many more tendrils deep within, so they're not great comparisons. 

We decided to go with Defender because we're pretty heavily invested in the rest of the Microsoft Stack, so it made sense. However, we wanted to do our due diligence because we're already using other products. We wanted to ensure we were picking the best of breed for our customers fair enough.

We were having issues with other products like ESET, SentinelOne, and Symantec. SentinelOne is just too deep and heavy. It's like trying to shoot a fence post with a missile. It was too much. We rely on the product and trust it. It takes a little while to get there, but once you trust a product, you can move on to the next thing and know you're protected.

I previously used, Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response, ESET Endpoint Security, and McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response before switching to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

I don't use Microsoft Defender that much. It is built into Windows 10, and if you put the antivirus or endpoint security on, it kind of turns itself off automatically. I've been using Bitdefender lately. I used to use Panda Security, but now I use Bitdefender.

I recommend it for clients who don't want to spend on a different endpoint solution, but I don't put all my eggs in one basket. I don't say that a particular antivirus or endpoint security solution is 10 times better than the other one. I just don't look at things that way because I know the process and what hackers actually go through to get past all of them. So, none of them are that much better. The only thing I tell others is to not use the free ones, but to that defense, they all have a level of reachability.

When it comes to performance, Microsoft Defender is much faster because it really doesn't look at all of the things that are Microsoft-focused. It has a better understanding of what Microsoft has made, whereas other solutions are going to look at anything as a potential threat. It is definitely a better option because it knows Windows. You install another antivirus on Windows, it has to try to figure out the software. Microsoft already knows how Word, OneNote, or their other solutions work. So, Microsoft Defender doesn't need to scan specific things, whereas Bitdefender or another solution doesn't know that, and it is going to scan everything, which can slow your system down. 

I offer a SOC, and we do real-time detection and response. I don't put all my eggs in one basket when it comes to endpoint security. I believe endpoint security needs to be there because it is a layer of security, but it is not everything. The reason I use Bitdefender is that it has more telemetry and more information coming out of it to put into my SOC than Microsoft Defender, which doesn't have as much telemetry coming out of it.

For telemetry or forensics, Microsoft Defender doesn't give you reports. It just does what it does. Microsoft Defender will give you information, but you got to go to the individual device. I can't pull much telemetry information into a SOC. So, if you want to see from where the hacker or the hacking software came in, how it got there, and how it moved unilaterally across the system or network, you may not get all of that with Microsoft Defender, but with the telemetry data that comes out of Bitdefender, you will get more of such information and you can follow its path.

I've used many products in the past, and I liked this one because I can't really find that many issues with it. I used McAfee, Symantec, CrowdStrike, and different anti-malware and anti-virus programs, but this seems to be good.

We switched because we're Microsoft partners, and we're actually kind of biased about it. We also implement other products because some of our clients use them. It's very hard to convince them to go with another product. Sometimes because of the existing subscriptions, they are unable to make the switch.

I previously used Trend Micro Apex One, but I've found that Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has more benefits. Although I haven't worked with the full suite of Trend Micro, I believe that their Suite is also highly effective. However, I have experience using the full suite of Microsoft Defender, and I find it to be a more powerful tool for threat detection. While Trend Micro Apex One is easy to implement, has a seamless implementation experience, and is superior when it comes to policy configuration; For threat detection capabilities, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is stronger.

I used Carbon Black and McAfee ePO in my previous organization, but they were in the process of moving everything to the Microsoft security solution.

Splunk was our main SIEM and alert system. It pulled alerts from different sources. When we received an alert, Splunk would quickly give us basic information, and then we would go straight to MDE. We received a lot more information from MDE's alerts than we did from Splunk.

I didn't spend a lot of time with Splunk. I normally input the hostname of the affected device that triggered the alert. I pulled all of the information from there, like the timeline of the event, the IOCs it had spotted, the name of the alert, and all of the other details. From there, I did a full investigation of the alert through MDE. I was very impressed with MDE. It gives great details, and it's very easy to use.

We were using Norton Antivirus, but we switched because we were familiar with Defender. We had Defender running on our home machines, and we had positive experiences because it didn't noticeably slow our machines. It was fairly intelligent at what it did. Sometimes, you feel a little restricted by a few of the things that it may not have. But in the end, I don't think that we're missing anything that we didn't already have in the product.

We previously used Symantec Endpoint Security.

Aside from the possibility that some forward-thinking people see us having more of a presence in Azure, and the logic of using a Microsoft product that goes along with that, I have no clear idea what prompted the switch. That is not a poor reflection on Microsoft. It's just that whatever motivated moving from a solution that was working fine to another solution is beyond my knowledge.

We use many solutions in our company, such as Panda, Trend Micro, McAfee, Microsoft, and FireEye.

I have always used Microsoft solutions.

We were using Norton as our endpoint antivirus solution. We switched so that we are able to centrally manage endpoint security.

We migrated from McAfee Endpoint Protection to Defender Antivirus. I worked with ePolicy Orchestrator from McAfee for almost 20 years. The user interface of McAfee was fine, but the hassle began with Windows 10. Updating McAfee and the endpoint security stuff was always a hassle. We had to update all the McAfee stuff before having a feature update, so we were always in this hassle of the update process of either McAfee or Windows. Defender is a seamless solution for Windows. 

Microsoft has done a lot to improve Defender. There are not so many differences between basic scanners. If you look at the Gartner studies, Defender has really improved a lot. It came out one or one and a half years before we started to migrate our clients to Intune MDM solution, and within this migration to MDM managed clients, we also established advanced threat protection (ATP) with Defender. It met our requirements perfectly, and we did penetration testing for the solution, and it turned out to be perfect. 

We previously used a separate antivirus and endpoint solution called Cynet but it was not very useful. Our organization moved into the Cloud so we decided to use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

We had previously used Webroot Business Endpoint Protection, Bitdefender GravityZone, CrowdStrike Falcon, and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is now included in our licenses, making it an easy addition for many of our clients since some of them already had the licenses that included the solution. Moreover, since many of us already use Microsoft products and portals daily, we were comfortable with Microsoft and the solution did not require a lot of retraining. Additionally, the price was another factor that made the solution attractive; CrowdStrike and the requirements associated with it are too costly for some of our clients.

Most of the companies I've worked for used Defender for Endpoint. I have used different SIEM tools like Splunk and briefly used QRadar a long time ago.

We used GFI Vipre. We switched because Vipre was not a Microsoft product, and we trust Microsoft. Between a third party and Microsoft, most people will choose Microsoft because the solution and the support are very good. We also have a client portfolio and we get a discount on the license.

I also use FireEye, which is now called Trellix, along with McAfee. Each tool has its own advantages and disadvantages. FireEye was solely an EDR solution. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is superior to McAfee due to the higher number of alerts and the ability to isolate and connect to the machine in real-time.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is the default solution for Microsoft, but it can be challenging to integrate with Linux environments. Additionally, if we are using any other EDR or anti-malware solutions, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint will only work passively, not actively, and we cannot convert it to function as an active anti-malware solution.

We used Kaspersky, but the version is exactly comparable to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

We switched to Microsoft for better integration. It integrates very well with the Microsoft antivirus, so we don't have to deploy additional infrastructure or an additional piece of software. We have extended security controls over Windows devices especially and a single dashboard.

There is also integration with Intune, which is the MDM from Microsoft.

We used Sophos and we switched because of integration. 

I'm also familiar with Kaspersky. We were previously using ESET.

I worked with one similar solution, which was VMware Carbon Black Cloud. Defender for Endpoint has the advantage because Carbon Black is a third party to the OS. That is going to create a lot of additional work to manually deploy things, check the installation, see if it's parsing. There could also be compatibility issues. Because Defender is integrated with the OS, you don't need to do those manual tasks to install the product or work through the compatibility issues.

We previously used Kaspersky Endpoint Protection. One of the reasons why we switched is the fact that traditional endpoint solutions tend to be monolithic. They usually run on an on-premises infrastructure. As a result, you have to deploy agents to all of the machines and to manage them, you have to be on the company's network or be able to access it through VPN. Also, those who work remotely will need to log into the VPN to receive updates. Often, those who don't need access to internal systems will go for months without logging into the VPN, which means that they will not pick up the updates.

We were also looking for a solution that was more cloud-friendly because the organization was moving towards the cloud with the emergence of remote work.

I used Trend Micro and Symantec in the past to research threats, like viruses and malware, but for me, Defender for Endpoint is the better solution. It's very easy to integrate all the tools and gives me a lot of information in one place. It's very easy to detect an attack or email threat.

Before Microsoft Defender for Endpoint we had Carbon Black. But when I came onboard, Defender for Endpoint had already been chosen.

Some of our clients have used different products from vendors such as Symantec and McAfee, and they were not happy with them. We steered them towards Windows Defender and they switched because of the ATP hook to the cloud.

With other products, you have a management console, so you have to push the signature updates. We still do that now, but it's all in the cloud.

Both Symantec and McAfee come at an additional charge because they are not included in the operating system.

We are working with multiple vendors for our clients. We are using CrowdStrike for some of the other organizations. Microsoft Defender has grown in a very big way in a very short period, but CrowdStrike Falcon is ahead of it in terms of protection.

Microsoft doesn't give everything in a single dashboard, whereas with Mandiant or Secureworks, from a single dashboard, you can manage everything, such as your EDR threats, vulnerability detection and response, and network detection and response. Microsoft has not grown up in that way.

We previously used Symantec Endpoint Security. It was somewhat clunky. The engineers found it too intrusive as it required a client to be installed, dramatically slowing down the machines. We switched to Defender for Endpoint because it's part of the Microsoft suite, and we can use it across platforms for Windows and Mac.

I have also used Splunk. Splunk is more modular and portable, allowing us to integrate it with a wide range of different tools. In contrast, features of Defender and Sentinel, such as those provided by Microsoft, do not integrate well with as many other options.

We used a different solution and switched to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint because the integration and alignment with Microsoft was great. The previous solution was heavy, and it took a long time to update. 

We use different email solutions and web solutions to handle incoming and outgoing traffic. However, we have not previously used another endpoint protection solution.

I previously worked with CrowdStrike Falcon. Defender is more effective because it identifies more threats than Falcon.

Before Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, we were using McAfee.

When I started with this company we used Splunk before we switched to Sentinel. We switched because Sentinel seems way faster.

In terms of the technical aspect, I'm the lead of the area, which actually takes care of endpoint management, and we have been using Symantec products for that purpose. We have evaluated Microsoft Defender and Microsoft security products, and we are going to switch over to that product. We found that  because the endpoint devices are based on Microsoft Windows devices and Windows Defender is integrated with the foundation and the core layer, it makes it more integrated and more agile in terms of responding to any security threats or changes or development, whereas compared to the other vendors who develop anything on top of that platform, they're always lagging behind.

Symantec support is very pathetic. They are very methodical. They're very slow. We seldom find them providing solutions to any incident or issue in a reasonable time. It can take from days to weeks. In the case of Microsoft, their resolution time is reasonably faster than Symantec. Even in the case of VMware and Redhead, Microsoft stands on top of all those vendors.

We had other products for antivirus and EDR. We removed those two products and replaced them with Microsoft Defender. They both were pretty good solutions in the market back then. One of them is a pretty good solution even now.

We found Microsoft Defender pretty good when we did the PoC as compared to the rest of the tools. Some of the solutions were only antivirus, and some of them were only EDR, whereas this particular tool had a lot of features built into it. So, one agent could do many things. Another reason for going for this solution was that the company I used to work with was a bit biased toward Microsoft. They were a Microsoft customer, and they were comfortable with Microsoft. 

The reliability of support was one of the reasons why we chose Microsoft. When it comes to tools, there are always requirements related to budget, level of support, and other things. When you go for a PoC and look at the demo, you might think a product is stable, but when you run into a problem, the support could be weak. In such instances, what's the use of the product if you don't have good support or if they take at least two to three days to solve a small issue?

Prior to working with Microsoft Defender, we used CrowdStrike and SentinelOne. We switched because these other products are standalone, and require that we install and maintain them manually. Microsoft Defender is unified and comes as part of Microsoft 365, which makes it easier to set up and manage.

The advantage that these other products have is the XDR features.

Previously we used McAfee and Symantec Endpoint. Every five years we change the solution. However, this time we changed to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint because we wanted a unified platform.

Before Microsoft Defender, we were using Bitdefender. Before Bitdefender, we were using McAfee Symantec.

We switched to Microsoft Defender because there was a change of ownership for the company in 2017.

We went for Microsoft Defender once we were informed that it would be part of our Office 365 package. So, we combined the licensing for the OS with Office 365. Yeah. We thought it was a good bargain.

We used McAfee and another solution as well and they both are great and amazing, however, they make PCs slow and every time something happens you have to call the vendor and they will help you support. The difference is, with Defender, it doesn't slow things done and you never have to call Microsoft.

I've used multiple solutions in the past. We switched based on our customers' requests. Some do it for solution architecture reasons and some of them do it for enterprise.

The enterprise customers say, "Oh, we know we need Endpoint Manager, but we need to align a solution with our business requirements first. Before you even select a solution we are going to look at our business requirements, then do a bake-off possibly, and then select a solution." Or they'll just look at industry ratings of the solutions and say, "Oh, this is the best one," not knowing that those ratings don't necessarily look at every new solution out there. There are so many. We are a VAR and we resell hundreds of security and regulatory compliance products. Usually, unless they bring us in at the early stages of the process, our clients have already picked a solution.

We previously used Sophos.

I have previously used ESET.

There are applications and solutions that we have used for five or more years. We almost used Microsoft Link but have since switched to Microsoft Teams and Skype for business. We almost exclusively use Cisco products such as Cisco EMC, Cisco Web security, and Cisco Meraki.

We work on most of the protection products, such as Kaspersky, Malwarebytes. We normally use a lot of them. We had a request from one of our customers, so we started to implement Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

We were originally using a product from Symantec before we switched to using Windows Defender. After that, we adopted the Microsoft solution for Azure.

We used another solution. The switch over to this solution was a management decision.

We are also using Symantec. 

We have a few endpoints where we use Microsoft Defender because we cannot use the Symantec Sets.

Previously, we were using a separate EDR product in our environment. We were using Sophos. Our organization moved into Microsoft 365, so we switched to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. 

We heard that it is one of the best products in the industry. We thought that we would get better results with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. That is why we moved to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, and we were able to achieve better results with it.

I've been an IaaS specialist since I began my career. I've done Apple MDM solutions and I've done Google Workspace, but when it comes to actual IaaS, I can't really compare. Because we're a Microsoft house, we generally don't use third parties or competitors.

Prior to Microsoft Defender, we tried quite a few different products from vendors such as Kaspersky and McAfee. One of the major reasons that we adopted Defender is because of the advantage that Microsoft owns the platform, Windows 10. As they have developed the operating system, it is believed that they understand how to guard it much better against a third party. An attacker has to learn a lot about Windows 10.

Another reason we selected Defender is the frequency of updates. Every other time that Windows is updated, Defender is updated. Again, this is because it is owned by Microsoft and exists on its platform.

We also use Microsoft ATP and we are currently looking at Microsoft Endpoint Manager.

We have worked with many different security solutions. For example, we are selling a Security Operations Center as a service. We implement EDR, Privileged Access Management, Identity Management, anti-fraud solutions, web application firewalls, database security, and more. We are working with practically everything in cybersecurity.

We are working with between 10 and 15 different vendors. Sometimes, this is too many, but it is useful to have information about each product, its quality, and how it compares to others. Two products that we are working with now are Cisco AMP and Carbon Black.

Previously, we were using another solution and were forced to uninstall it to patch Windows. It was an annoyance to reinstall it.

When we were running older operating systems including Windows XP and Windows Vista, we had a Symantec Endpoint solution. We had that for a long time but we opted out. After that, we used McAfee and other antivirus products. However, since Windows 10 was released, and with Microsoft Defender included by default, we felt that it was the solution for us.

As I recall, we stopped using McAfee and Symantec once we moved to Windows 8.

Before using this solution, the company mostly dealt with antivirus solutions.

We moved to this solution to strengthen and report, detect and prevent, et cetera, which antivirus solutions don't offer. We wanted forensics and capabilities that were missing. Antiviruses simply cannot protect you from advanced persistent threats, and they cannot protect you from ransomware and they don't respond to things faster. Response capabilities were something that was missing. Basically, we just needed more.

Prior to using Microsoft Defender, we used McAfee and Avast Antivirus.

One of the main reasons that we switched away from McAfee is that it required purchasing a subscription. With Microsoft Defender, it is included with Windows. When we install the operating system, it is already there and we don't have to purchase an additional antivirus product.

For security, aside from a traditional antivirus, we have purchased the SentinelOne Endpoint Security solution. This product is more enhanced when compared to an antivirus product. It is modern and has better threat intelligence than other products. I don't know SentinelOne very well yet, as we have just purchased the subscription, but I know that the difference between products is not based on virus definitions.

SentinelOne has intelligence on the cloud and many other security features including the blocking of domain names, and the blocking of USB drives that users plug into their laptops. Although it has many more features than legacy antivirus software, I have no complaints about the performance of Microsoft Defender.

One of the reasons we are more heavily relying on endpoint security is that everybody is working from home and using the internet for work. This transition was made within the last two or three months. When people were working in the office, the firewall afforded them protection. However, as it is now, the endpoints are more vulnerable to attack. This is why we now rely more heavily on SentinelOne.

We currently use Cylance, in addition to Microsoft Defender. I'm not sure what the impact is of using two solutions, whether it is a good thing, or not. We do plan on narrowing this down to one solution in the future.

We used CrowdStrike but we switched to Microsoft because of the price. It's cheaper. There were other major differences. 

We did not use another solution previous to Microsoft Defender ATP.

From the beginning of the pandemic, we received another kind of software when we had to be at home, but it caused us problems with the performance. So, I decided to quit the other software. Then, I installed Windows Defender on all my computers, including my grandchildren's computers.

I was using Sophos previously, but it was causing problems with the performance. For example, when my grandchildren were trying to assume a session, they opened Excel or Word with a 4 GB computer using Windows 10 and then they always lost the connection or the continuities because the computer slowed down. However, when we decided to quit using Sophos and install all the features of Windows Defender, then those problems were resolved.

I have previously used the McAfee Stinger product. 

We used other solutions, like ESET and Kaspersky. We had to change at first due to user complaints, especially about Kaspersky, because it used a lot of the resources. So we switched to ESET but after some time we just switched to Windows Defender. 

Previously, we didn't work with anything as sophisticated. We used a pretty old-style endpoint detection response.

We have used other antiviruses, like McAfee and Avira Antivirus.

The same thing can be viewed as a pro and a con:

Pro: It is more than silent; you do not even realize that it is an antivirus. Any other antivirus third-party will nag you with pop ups for any small threats. They want to show that they are doing something because you pay them money. They are funny, colorful pop-ups, whatever color they use is like an advertisement for them, e.g., "They are doing it wrong, and we pointed it out." Windows Defender does not do that. In a way, this is good for the people who know the threat sender. They do not really need to be nagged by the antivirus every time you open a site or click on a file.

Con: For normal people who do not know anything about the security side, some pop ups should be there. Some pop-ups call people's attention that you are doing it the wrong way. For example, "This is potentially wrong. Don't visit this site. Don't potentially open this link, file, or attachment." This is missing in Windows Defender.

We were previously using the Avast security solution.

I tested the difference between Symantec and Defender by taking a malware from the internet and downloading it. Symantec allowed me to do it, even though it shouldn't have, but Defender, gave me notification and wouldn't allow me to do it. That said, Symantec is a very stable product that's been on the market for a long time. They have more expertise in endpoint protection than Microsoft. Symantec is not a cost-effective product for most customers. It's integrated with third party companies and is good in protecting endpoint. Because my customer base is companies that use Office 365 and Microsoft Azure so Microsoft integration with these products is very good.

I have never used any solution apart from Windows Defender when safeguarding my systems.

I didn't use or evaluate other solutions.

My company deploys Symantec antivirus. However, when we buy a laptop, it includes Windows 10, which has Defender antivirus installed. Therefore, we use both antivirus software, Symantec and Defender.

In the past, I have used other solutions from Symantec, McAfee, and RSA.

I was just using or trying to get a personal PC secure using a product I got as part of the Office 365 package. There was no previous product installed.  

We were using a different product previously, however, I can't recall the name of it at this time. It might have been number three on the market in 2019. I can't recall precisely.

We used a different product prior to this one, but I switched because I have a unified security overview of the corporation. The Security Center is key for being able to work everything from one console.

I used to use McAfee & Norton as a different solution in my previous Organization.

Recently we tested another product that employs Endpoint Detection and Response and also behavior analysis protection. It also was able to filter activities or data. These are things that Microsoft Windows Defender does not do. We stayed with Windows Defender because of the cost.

In the past, I have used McAfee and Kaspersky. 

I only work with Microsoft products right now. It integrates well with other products. I also work with Microsoft Defender for Identity.

We were using another solution that was number three in the market according to Gartner 2019.

We used Bitdefender, McAfee, and Norton antivirus software previously. Those are the main experiences that we have. We used all of those at various times.

I have used ClowdStrike previously.

We have used eScan Endpoint Security.

I have used Symantec Endpoint Protection. It was the standard choice in my previous company.

Prior to this solution, I had used different anti-virus products. One of them was a solution by Kaspersky, which I used for a long time. When I was using it, my PC was running very slow. Sometimes, I was not able to access legitimate websites because Kaspersky blocked them. I found that it blocked many websites that were legally valid, which was frustrating.

Because of these reasons, I switched products.

I used another product after Kaspersky for one year but it was not good either.

I had been using AVG prior to Microsoft Defender.

I did previously use a different solution, but it was more convenient to work with Defender. I wanted to use the same provider. I'm using the Microsoft operating system and Microsoft applications. It seemed to be a logical step. 

Defender is integrated into the operating system. It's integrated with everything. You don't have to spend time analyzing what you have to do to be sure that the integration is okay between the security tool and all the other apps. This, from my point of view, is the main advantage.

I did previously try to use the free version of Avast. It's not really user friendly like Defender and it used to use a lot of my laptop's resources. I switched to Defender as it was also free and came with my Windows 10.

We have clients that also ask to license Kaspersky or BitDefender for added protection.

Microsoft Windows Defender was the first solution of this type that we used. However, we also use the Sophos EPP Suite for endpoint protection.