Prior to Panda, we had SentinelOne. Panda is a lot less work than SentinelOne in our environment. We still use a lot of Excel macros. We've got applications that we created ourselves and are unsigned. We work with machines with extremely old operating systems, and these things run off of applications that we have built in-house. SentinelOne wanted to shut down the applications so that the machines couldn't connect. It was costing us money. I can't give SentinelOne a bad review just because of our environment. Our environment is very unique, so it's not fair to SentinelOne. But at the same time, we just weren't made for each other. 

I don't know why my company uses SentinelOne internally.

In my company, we work with SentinelOne. The fact that it is difficult for the people in my company to understand SentinelOne pushed me to check the difference between SentinelOne and Panda Adaptive Defense 360 on the internet.

We previously used Symantec, McAfee, and Kaspersky. We switched to Panda Security Adaptive Defense from Symantec and McAfee because we were not happy with the administration of the solutions. Kaspersky was an okay solution, but they were not proposing the same cloud-based approach as Panda Security Adaptive Defense.

I've worked with Kaspersky Antivirus Security Center 12 and it protects the software over the networks to protect the workstations from any attacks. Kaspersky is a good solution for medium and large businesses. The main difference is how you can solve issues over the workstations. It's easy in Kaspersky. Also, the reporting system in Kaspersky is better as it gives a view of your entire network and of your servers and the attacks from which users. They have a great reporting system in comparison to Panda.

I used multiple different products. I switched to them because they had a SIEM behind it. That's really the only reason.

I used to use iShare. iShare went out of business. When that happened, I had to switch from that. They were kind of like an EDR, however,  they still offered more antivirus type items instead of EDR. Panda, on the other hand, has the EDR plus a SIEM behind it and I'm really an advocate for SIEMs.

We were using ESET, and they charged extra for cloud protection, which I don't like. In contrast, that is already there in this.

We've used Trend Micro. 

They're both very, very good. I wouldn't put one above the other. 

Both of them are very, very stable products. The only thing with Trend is we get fewer false positives with Trend, which is good value. That said, the reporting is actually better for Panda.

We previously use Symantec Endpoint Protection but we needed more resources for it to run.

We previously used Symantec. However, we switched because some of our operating systems were becoming older, and we needed to find something to keep us in those older devices.

I have not sold security solutions other than what is offered by Panda. However, I have personally worked with tools such as Kaspersky. The main difference with Panda is that it uses goodware instead of malware. All other antivirus solutions block know viruses using their definitions, whereas Panda, on the other hand, allows known software and applications and blocks everything else.

We used SSPS antivirus program for our clients, as well as AVG AntiVirus. We had a chance to test Panda Security before putting it in production. When we saw the capabilities of the program, we decided to switch to it. 

We were on ManageEngine and Symantec, then moved to Panda Cloud and used the service desk of ManageEngine.

I have also worked with Sophos. It is a better solution but Panada Security is more economical and the feature set is good.