I'd rate Panda five out of 10. I give it that high just because it does work to some extent and it's cost-effective. My attitude toward Panda is 50/50. I get probably 10 or 15 emails a day complaining that machines lack protection. But if the console can detect the machine and knows that it's lacking protection, then my logic says, "Update it." But for whatever reason, I have to manually do it again. It's painful. It shouldn't be as expensive as it is. And I think it's going to be a lot more expensive now that WatchGuard owns it. Hopefully, they make a lot of good changes, but I've had enough with Panda.

Another thing to note about Panda is that I haven't seen anything in the documentation about compliance with GDPR regulations. I've got 11 locations in Europe, and we're going to have a GDPR tenant for the most stringent country or area. So even being in the US, I'll have to abide by European GDPR here in the US for all the locations to share one tenant. Otherwise, we'd have to have multiple tenants, which will cost us more money and be more of a hassle to manage. 

Before you install it, do a 90-day proof of concept. Thirty days is too short. You need to see the failing endpoints and what you have to do to fix it.

I rate the ease of use and management of Panda Adaptive Defense 360 an eight on a scale of one to ten.

The tool's ability to provide information about the vulnerability is the most impactful feature of the product that has an impact on our company's security posture.

Speaking about scenarios where the solution effectively prevented the security breach, I would say that our company sees how the tool blocks when our customers accidentally click on some malware, after which it quarantines that file. My company makes a playbook with the SOAR tool that Panda Adaptive Defense 360 uses to block and isolate attacks. In our company's system, if there is a big event that occurs, then to block the endpoint, we use SOAR with Panda Adaptive Defense 360 to block and isolate attacks or threats.

The solution's real-time monitoring has improved our company's ability to detect threats if we use it in our company with Panda SIEMFeeder. Only if in my company there is a need to do some research, prepare a report, or if we want to change the policy, so it is not very often that we use the visualization part of the tool in our company.

The reporting and analytics part of the tool has helped with the decision-making in our company since we combine different kinds of logs and situations from different ingestion logs, and we can configure a specific alert. In my company, we use the tool's data search functionality if required to check the information we need. Presently, our company uses the configuration alert and SIEMFeeder in our system.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We have one person who does the maintenance of the solution. We do not have anything on-premise to maintain, but there is some administration that has to be done, such as configuration.

I would recommend this solution to others. They are not the most advanced in terms of detection and artificial intelligence and user behavior. However, it is not the best solution on the market, but it is priced well for the features it provides. 

I rate Panda Security Adaptive Defense a seven out of ten.

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We're using the latest version of the solution. We're always updating the product.

We are just a customer and end-user of the product. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. For the most part, we have been very happy with it. 

We do plan to continue to use the solution into the future. We don't have plans to change anything.

The advice I would give to others looking into implementing Panda Security Adaptive Defense is just to get more information. I think we need a little more competitive analysis info as to what the competitors out there are using. A comparison of Symantec, BitDefender, and Panda would be useful for many customers. 

On a scale from one to 10, one being the worst and 10 being the best, I would give Panda Security Adaptive Defense a nine for overall performance.

I'm a consultant and reseller.

I'd advise other organizations to try the solution. That's all I can say. There are so many different aspects of it and so many different pieces that you can put it together depending on what you're using it for. The solution itself is great. It's just all the other stuff around it that is sometimes difficult.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If it wasn't for the dated platform, I'd rate it a bit higher.

In Africa, we suffer attacks all the time. It's an everyday need. We need to protect our devices and our information from these attacks. In terms of recommendations, I would suggest using Panda Security to protect computers against these and other types of attacks. 

Many people initially struggle with licensing costs, and some resort to open-source solutions. However, when they experience an attack, they realize the importance of using a commercial license. 

We recently discussed the issue of device protection during a session where Panda Security was recommended. Many people have shown interest in the solution, and we are waiting for feedback. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Panda Security as a ten. 

I've been using the most up-to-date version. Many of my customers use the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I'd rate the product ten out of ten. It's an excellent product. 

We're integrators and resellers. 

The solution does its job pretty well. We're in a region where there are a lot of ransomware attacks, and so far, we haven't had to deal with anything like that. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

I rate Panda Security Adaptive Defense nine out of 10. There's always room for improvement.

We're using the latest version of the solution. 

There may be better solutions; however, for now, we use this.

I'd advise new users to first know the rules they wish to implement before doing the full deployment.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We do resell the product.

We are using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall. We're pretty happy with it. 

I would recommend the solution to others.

Panda Security Adaptive Defense is deployed on the cloud. I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate Panda Security Adaptive Defense nine out of ten.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others, they should try it out for the 30-day trial. If they are happy then they can purchase it later.

I rate Panda Security Adaptive Defense a seven out of ten.

For first time users, I'd recommend contacting the Central Team for guidance.

I rate the solution nine out of 10. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. I recommend this solution to users looking for something economical to cover most of their bases.

I would recommend this solution for endpoint protection for other companies. We didn't have any major security issues.

I would rate Panda Security Adaptive Defense a nine out of ten.

This is a very good product. It may feel that it is a bit more expensive but in my experience, it is easily worth it. The core functionality of the product is very impressive and I recommend that people use it. That said, there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

There are a few options to change or improve, but so far the product is very good. I will rate it a nine out of ten.

It worked well for the time we had it in, and local support was great! If an issue had to be escalated, international remote support was provided.

Most of the products out there are quite good. Know how you would prefer to manage them.

Advice that I would give to anyone deploying Panda Security is to tell them to block every process except the known ones. In this case, you will start in the best situation and with the safest approach. It is better to block every unknown or new process because these can be threats. You can then unblock those that you want to have running. For example, if you add new processes or discover processes that were blocked and should not be, you can just unblock or add them.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as about an eight out of ten. They still need to improve a lot of features and they need to work on and add to the knowledge base that can be accessed by users and customers.  

If they add the features for expanding the add-ons and improve their mobile application support, that would give them a nine out of ten.  

In general, this product is performing to our expectations. Of course, the best thing to do if you're going to purchase any product is to do a proof of concept first. There are limitations with any software but based on our experience, we are happy with Panda Security Adaptive Defense. That said, it is not perfect.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The attestation paradigm is specific to Panda. I haven't found it anywhere else as strongly enforced into the solution.

My advice would be to follow the general rules, do a trial, learn about it well. Test it in a test environment, change the settings according to your customer-specific needs, and then implement it if you find it has advantages.

In the next release, I would like for them to add DDR features, threat intelligence, and more analytics. It lacks in that area. It should be integrated better with CMS and other useful enterprise applications and tools.

Threat intel also needs improvement. If I was a security analyst, employed in a company and my boss asked me what I think about this solution, the first place I’d look is where the threat intel is. It just lacks this. It is well hidden in cloud attestation service.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.