We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Sophos EPP Suite Competitors and Alternatives

Get our free report covering Microsoft, CrowdStrike, Trend Micro, and other competitors of Sophos EPP Suite. Updated: October 2021.
542,267 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Sophos EPP Suite competitors and alternatives

Mark Krishnan
Associate Director - Infrastructure Engineering at AFT
Real User
Top 10
Great protection, excellent customer service, and an easy to understand UI

Pros and Cons

  • "The UI is simple and self-explanatory. Everything is easy to understand."
  • "Basically, they don't cover legacy OS or applications. That's the only issue we're concerned about"

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution as advanced threat protection. It is used to protect all endpoints, servers, etc. 

What is most valuable?

They're very good at what they do. As far as the product is, in its current state, I don't have any complaints at all right now. They do a quarterly review with us, just so they can let us know how many viruses or how much malware they've stopped, etc. Those features are quite good. They also go through the portal step-by-step to describe whatever they improved or tightened up. They will explain everything clearly and in a way that a customer can understand.

They do also ask for feedback, which is nice. They'll ask things like "The last time we changed this, how was your experience?" or "Did you get a lot of false positives?" or "Did you get any complaints?" etc. That's pretty good. Not many companies do that.

The UI is simple and self-explanatory. Everything is easy to understand.

So far, in the past three years, they've been absolutely great. They've been more proactive than the solution we had previously was. They even introduced new products in their line and they came back and told us that they could add that product to our current solution. At first, we added them, then we decided we had sufficient resources in house to manage it ourselves and removed it. They were great about the change. 

They've caught quite a lot of viruses and malware that have been sent through improper links, which is very reassuring. 

They report any network isolation that has been done on certain endpoints if they detect a malicious file or malware on the device that couldn't be cleaned by automation. They isolate it or us. The end-user can contact the service desk and say, "Hey, I'm not able to surf the internet. I can't do anything, so can you help me?" or we're able to look at the endpoint and see "oh, your PC is infected, that's why you aren't allowed on." It's protecting us well.

Even though the users are somewhere else, even when they're not at headquarters, we are able to remediate everything before we put them on the network again. Those network isolations are great when we detect high threat malicious items. Those are valuable tools that we appreciate.

What needs improvement?

If an operating system is stopped by support by the original vendor like Microsoft, or maybe Apple, within a few weeks, CrowdStrike will also decide they no longer support it, and they kind of move on. I understand their model. However, if we still have the OS, it's hard to keep it protected. So, for example, if Microsoft decides to stop supporting or patching a solution, Crowdstrike too will stop supporting it and making updates. It's still a useable product, it's just not getting updates or patches and therefore may be vulnerable. 

The result is that we can't guarantee we're going to be able to protect that hardware or operating system. We either have to upgrade to a newer platform, which sometimes is not possible because you have a legacy application. Whatever that constraint is, sometimes we're not able to move things. We still have to rely on other products to support that. That's the only quandary I have with them. 

Basically, they don't cover legacy OS or applications. That's the only issue we're concerned about.

When a file is infected or it detects a ransomware file network, when it does remediate, it should self-heal as Sophos does. That's a good feature to have, but I don't know enough pros and cons about that to kind of recommend that because if it is a false positive, that may be a problem. If it detected a valid file and if for some reason it decides, "Oh, this looks like an infection," and maybe it's not actually infected, and if it goes in and remediates it by replacing it with an older file, that may be a problem. However, I don't know, because I've never used that feature or heard anybody say that's a problem.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for about three years now.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I have two engineers that regularly watch everything. We all get alerts. We'll see if something gets isolated, or a user will tell us. We isolate the issues and work on them so nothing gets through the endpoints into the system. Within 30 minutes to an hour, an issue can be cleared.

It's therefore very stable. We're able to catch everything before it can get it. It's reliable for sure.

They're so pro-active there's very little intervention that we have to do on our end.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is easily scalable. A company shouldn't have any issues with that aspect of the solution.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is great. We've never had to contact them at all. Instead, they've always been proactive and reached out to us.

Their quarterly review manager will contact us every three months. They schedule it months ahead and we actually jump on a Zoom or WebEx meeting. They actually go through the improvements, how much detections they go through, all of our features, anything new that has been added, anything they're seeing out in the world in terms of threats, and where we need to tighten up the roles.

They would improve the sensitivity level or they will decrease the sensitivity level for some false positives. For example, they might say "Hey, we detect these, but they're not really a threat because this is just a Word document that's produced in an older format. It's not something that's malicious." Then they would decrease the sensitivity in certain areas, to eliminate the issue going forward. They always ask permission before tweaking anything. They will come to us and say, "this is what we're considering doing it and why we want to do it. Is that okay?" We usually agree to that and then they go ahead and do it.

It's just a phenomenal company. If they ever stopped the way they handle their customer service, then I would probably move on to a different company. So far they've been pretty good. For the last three years, they contacted us always and told us about every aspect of the solution. I don't think I missed a quarterly meeting so far with them due to the fact that it's all been so valuable.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Originally, we had Webroot. We used to get, every so often, a slew of viruses that would get through the cracks. I don't know if Webroot's definition didn't get updated in a timely manner or if they were just delayed in something, however, whatever it was, we used to get that intrusion quite a bit. Then we would patch it and we would have to remediate everything. It wasn't ideal. 

We were looking for a product that would be more proactive than a reactive solution, and after doing a bunch of research, we decided on CrowdStrike. 

How was the initial setup?

The solution's initial setup was very simple. The only thing we had an issue with is our network operation. Is a separate organization that manages it. We have a network operation that we used for 24 hour monitoring. They don't support CrowdStrike and they were not experts in it. They stood us we would have to manage it ourselves. In the beginning, we were kind of worried about it. However, after that initial stage, the simplicity of how to install it, configure it was like a breeze.

We manage the entire solution in house. For maintenance, we have me and two engineers, plus a second level of support. There are around five people altogether.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I'm not sure of the exact cost of the solution. That's a detail our finance department handles.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We did research on Cylance. We looked at Norton as well. We went through a bunch of products and we decided CrowdStrike was probably the most advanced threat protection at that time, which was three years ago. 

One of the products we were looking at is Sophos. The reason we were looking at Sophos is we were purchasing a backup and disaster recovery tool. In that tool, they had a built-in Sophos pack; they integrated Sophos in to protect the backup and replication and recovery. That way, if a backup had infections, for some reason, and they weren't picked up, and it got into our backup product, then Sophos could kick in and pick it up. It has automated remediation, meaning it reverses back the infection before infection if that makes sense.

Sophos has a self-healing technology built into it, which is an AI technology that they invented. We were looking at that because we thought that may be a better product. We were doing some homework on that and trying to figure out more about it. We're still in the process of purchasing a backup and recovery tool, so we're still doing our homework.

What other advice do I have?

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. The last time I checked, it was version 5.6. It is up-to-date, however. I get a report every so often saying, we've updated the sensors, or current version, etc. It's an auto-update and it does that. Whenever it's missing something or it couldn't reach an endpoint, the company will send me a report of that, saying these endpoints are not updated because we couldn't detect it on the network any longer.

The only advice I would say to others considering the solution is, if they have an unsupported operating system or legacy application, to look closely at CrowdStrike to see if the solution actually makes sense for them. This is due to the fact that they're not going to be able to support it. If they have thousands of servers and 20% of them are legacy applications, they may not want to think about CrowdStrike because the solution doesn't support legacy products. Other than that, I fully recommend CrowdStrike. The advanced threat protection they have has always been great.

I'd rate the solution a solid nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Amir Afkhami
Country IT Logistics & Facilities Manager at DHL
Real User
Top 10
Straightforward to use with good licensing options and doesn't consume too many resources

Pros and Cons

  • "As a Japanese company, it doesn't have any restrictions on usage in our country."
  • "We found an issue on the server-side. Sometimes, it slows down the servers if you install it on the SQL."

What is most valuable?

The software itself is very light. It doesn't consume many resources on the clients. 

The solution is pretty straightforward.

The licensing is very good.

As a Japanese company, it doesn't have any restrictions on usage in our country.

What needs improvement?

We found an issue on the server-side. Sometimes, it slows down the servers if you install it on the SQL. 

In some cases, the version on the server-side, when you install it on the server, doesn't update when the updates are available. For example, if the virus definitions are getting updated every two days, even though you push the updates to the servers from the management console of Trend Micro, it doesn't update the servers successfully.

On the client-side, on the computers, desktops, and laptops, when you do the restart, the new virus definition appears. We are now working with technical support to find out a way to upgrade or use a patch or do some modifications to get the servers updated frequently. Even though we push twice a week from the management console to the servers, still those definitions are not getting updated. We have quite a number of servers - almost 90 server installations - therefore, it's very hard to restart them just to get the virus definition updated. That's one of our biggest problems at the moment with Trend Micro.

Of course, when you do restart the server, it fetches the updates from the management server but that's not the way you can perfect the server. It should be noted that servers sometimes will not get used for a month or two. That's a challenge for us, keeping them updated. On top of that, the current vulnerabilities that you have up there on the Windows clients and the number of attacks registered, have increased.

It would be ideal if the solution could offer more control of computers from the management console in terms of, maybe, dealing with file-sharing. You should be able to block computers from sharing when they are on an external network. That's one of the things I was hoping they could catch in the new version that was released in July, but we didn't get that option.

In Symantec, for example, you can block file-sharing on your clients so they cannot share any data with anybody in the network if they connect to an external network. It makes things much safer.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for three years now.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We haven't had any issues with the stability of the product. It doesn't crash, or freeze and there aren't bugs. It's actually very smart. We haven't had any issues with any of our clients or on our computers.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have scaled the solution slightly. The initial report was for 300 clients. We added on 100 more clients, and there was no problem. There was no performance degradation on the management console, and it was running fine. Therefore, I can say that it can scale pretty well.

We'll likely further increase usage. We were planning a review. We are actually in process of getting a quotation to get it upgraded to increase our license, in order to cover all of our distributors and partners. There are small companies, but they're not running any security protection on their clients. So every now and then they will have an infected machine that will infect their ERP system and the sales on their system will be impacted. Therefore, on behalf of them, we are purchasing the licenses for all their clients to ensure business continuity on their side. We are looking at almost 100 additional licenses.

How are customer service and technical support?

In our region, we get support from India. There are actually some problems with some latency in getting the support we need. We have to wait until Monday to get the support from them as, in our time zone, we work Saturday until Wednesday. The weekends are Thursdays and Fridays. However, they work from Monday to Friday. Therefore, we will have only three days of office hours overlap. If you want to get support from them, you need to follow their availability. It is also not around the clock. It's only business days in India.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I have experience with Symantec Endpoint as well. I use both solutions.

How was the initial setup?

Initially, there was a challenge where we had to change our server and do the installation, however, that wasn't due to the functionality of Trend Micro. When you change the server you need to have all the clients' requirements related to the parameters of the new server. We did that through group policies and running small scripts in the stackable scripts of the group policy. That way, from the Windows side, certain clients get redirected to the new server.

However, when we wanted to upgrade it to the latest client version in July, we had to do them all manually. It pushes the installation to the client when it comes to implementers. Yet, in terms of changing the version, upgrading the version, or the agent on the client-side, sometimes you need to do that manually. We have 400 clients, and we needed to load them one-by-one. We had to manually remove the old version and install the new version.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

If I'm not mistaken, for three years, for 400 licenses, we paid nearly 15,000 euros. We don't have any additional costs that we have to pay on top of that.

What other advice do I have?

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with Trend Micro.

Trend Micro may be planning to launch a new product called Apex or Alex in January. However, right now, we are using the most current version of the solution which was launched in July. This version is compatible with Windows 10.

We actually waited for this release to happen due to the fact that the previous versions of Trend Micro were not compatible with the latest Windows so we couldn't upgrade our Windows clients. We waited nearly three months, or maybe two months, so we would be able to upgrade our clients' Windows builds to the latest version, and ensure everything was compatible.

We have a management server that manages the licenses and the number of computers and the deployment and management of computers.

It companies are considering the solution, it's a good idea to do a virtual benchmark. I wasn't sure that Trend Micro was a good solution, so I ran a benchmark. I had prior experience with Symantec Endpoint Protection, and also Panda software- the Panda Security Cloud Version. BI found that Trend Micro was very reliable in terms of when we did the benchmark on the software, on the licenses, on the management side, and the admin solution overhead. 

Considering the trade sanctions and all the complications we have in Iran, I found Trend Micro to be compatible with those sanctions as well, as it's a Japanese company and they are not using any technology developed in U.S. It was a sanction-compliant solution as well. 

In terms of the cost, you could buy the license for three years or five years. It was almost hassle-free to get the new party license for three years. You don't need to pay for any license renewal every year. 

It's very straightforward and usable. In terms of administration, the liability is better than Panda, Sophos, and Symantec. With Symantec, it's a U.S. product, therefore we couldn't use it in Iran anyway.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. However, with the embargo, there isn't as much competition in the market right now. We don't have too many options.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PK
Senior IT Support at a hospitality company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Good for pushing out security updates but it needs to add patch management

Pros and Cons

  • "F-Secure is useful for keeping user machines up-to-date by pushing out security and critical updates."
  • "But the biggest one for us is patch management because this has been our top priority when looking at alternatives. Every solution needs to have patch management, if that's possible. It would cut costs on our side if that feature were included, so we don't need to pay for two separate pieces of software."

What is our primary use case?

We have a lot of remote workers, so it's just a matter of installing the client on employees' machines and then pushing out critical security updates to our users when necessary. Everyone in the company uses it. We're a cruise company with about 170 employees in the usual departments, like accounts, IT, product sales, designers, and finance. We've got a couple of Mac users in the business as well, but it's mostly Windows users.

We use Endpoint Protection every day constantly to monitor alerts as well as to ensure all the user machines and security definitions are up-to-date.  For patch management, we use Syxsense. It's a different software that we run that alongside F-Secure. So this is a reason we're looking at something else that packages these features all together. 

What is most valuable?

F-Secure is useful for keeping user machines up-to-date by pushing out security and critical updates. As long as all the security updates are rolled out and the antivirus definitions are up-to-date, it's good. 

What needs improvement?

Sometimes, F-Secure doesn't always work as well as we'd like when we're using the console to push out an update to individual machines, like, for instance, an update to Google Chrome. For some updates to take effect, we have to get the user to restart the machine to finish the installation. So based on the information we get on the dashboard, we can't tell if it's successfully pushing all the updates out, like just the smaller and medium-threat ones. So this is one area we'd like to see F-Secure improve. But the biggest one for us is patch management because this has been our top priority when looking at alternatives. Every solution needs to have patch management, if that's possible. It would cut costs on our side if that feature were included, so we don't need to pay for two separate pieces of software. 

For how long have I used the solution?

It's about three years, possibly.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

F-Secure seems to be stable. I don't think we've had any major issues with it not working or going down or anything like that. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability of F-Secure Elements is fine. The company's grown over the past few years, so we've had to increase licenses. We have about 175 employees, but we have more licenses because some staff members have more than one machine. So we probably have about 250 licenses. Of course, we've had to get rid of a lot of stuff with the current situation, so we're okay license-wise. We've had no issue just adding licenses then rolling them out to machines. 

How are customer service and support?

I don't believe we've ever had to contact F-Secure support.

How was the initial setup?

My manager took care of the initial setup. When we add new machines, we roll out the installer to configure them. Right now, the support team comprises my manager and me.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

My manager deals with the cost of the product and licenses. I'm pretty sure that everything we use is included in there, like all the other add-ons and the bits and bobs. But, again, I'm not the best to speak about the financial side of F-Secure.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We looked at a few different alternatives, like Sophos, CrowdStrike, and Trend Micro Apex. My manager made the call to work with F-Secure. It's pretty simple to use. With the console and the dashboard, there's no information overload. It's easy to follow as well. And, of course, it's pretty straightforward to do things like web filtering, generating reports, and creating profiles. It's also simple to deploy it to machines and remotely, so it's convenient for us in that respect. I'm guessing that the manager went with it for these reasons.

What other advice do I have?

I rate F-Secure Elements Endpoint Protection seven out of 10. If you're considering F-Secure, I would say give it a go. I don't know how it compares with others in terms of the cost, but I'm pretty sure it's decent. Elements does what it says on the tin, so I would recommend it. However, we are looking at other providers now because we want something that provides built-in patch management. That's why we're leaning towards SentinelOne.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Joseph Kayima
Management Information Systems Officer at ICPAU
Real User
Top 20
Easy to deploy, run and maintain

Pros and Cons

  • "The feature that I have found most valuable is its deployment. It is easy to centrally deploy. You can deploy it on the Administration Console then deploy it to the different endpoint machines without specifically deploying it manually on each machine. Its deployment is really user friendly."
  • "There are quite a number of areas for improvement. The first area for improvement is that I find this solution to be very resource intensive when you're running a particular task, even a mere scanning task, even though it's running in the background. When you go to inspect the resources you realize it makes the machine very slow. It takes up a lot of resources even though there are no particular scanning tasks scheduled to run. That's one of the issues."

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use case for Kaspersky Endpoint Security is to protect our endpoint machines and ideally we are also looking at protecting our server. However, I had challenges deploying it to the servers. It was making them really slow.

What is most valuable?

The feature that I have found most valuable is its deployment. It is easy to centrally deploy. You can deploy it on the Administration Console then deploy it to the different endpoint machines without specifically deploying it manually on each machine. Its deployment is really user friendly. 

Additionally, scheduled tasks like scanning and safe rules, taking rules and grouping the different machines, being able to pick updates automatically and deploy them remotely are generally very easy, though we've had some challenges.

What needs improvement?

There are quite a number of areas for improvement. The first area for improvement is that I find this solution to be very resource intensive when you're running a particular task, even a mere scanning task, even though it's running in the background. When you go to inspect the resources you realize it makes the machine very slow. It takes up a lot of resources even though there are no particular scanning tasks scheduled to run. That's one of the issues.

The second area for improvement had to do with machines at one point being unable to communicate with the Central Server or the Heartbeat.

Another issue is related to installations. There is a feature for remotely deploying the solution on your endpoint machines, but some machines can fail. There was a particular incident where I needed to reinstall the solution again and it wasn't uninstalling. So the uninstallation process was a bit challenging. I had to install the machine again manually. They were Windows machines so I had to go and restore the machine again. Uninstalling it and reinstalling it on some machines can be a bit challenging.

Additionally, the way it handles threats is an area for improvement. Suppose there is a particular threat that has been detected, maybe someone inserted their flash drive or something. It does not give me an option to configure. I don't know if I was doing it right so that the threat is neutralized without me having to log on to the Administration Console. Then you go to Active Threats and manually delete that threat. I thought it would be intelligent enough. For instance, if I compare it to the Defend, if the flash drive has a virus it'll delete it automatically or quarantine it and give me a notification. Here, I don't get notifications. There is no feature providing me with real time notifications. I have to manually go to the Administration Console, log on and try to view if there are active threats on the network. 

There is also the issue of synchronization with the Active Directory particularly if I'm using the Linux server. Sometimes you have a machine you have deleted from the Active Directory or disconnected from the network but that machine is still appearing in the Administration Console and you have to delete it manually. These are some of the challenges we meet with Kaspersky Endpoint Security.

In terms of what I would like to see in the next release, I would like it to be a bit lighter. I've used a couple of other solutions and I find them lighter to use than Kaspersky. Kaspersky really has to improve on that aspect of making sure that it's not consuming a lot of resources.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Kaspersky Endpoint Security for the last five years.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Kaspersky Endpoint Security is scalable.

How are customer service and technical support?

Normally, we don't contact tech support directly. We rely on the partner here who supplies the solution.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Our license is a paid license which we pay annually. Every year we have been renewing the licenses.

I don't have any issues with the price. I think the pricing is fair.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We have been using Kaspersky Endpoint for Business Advanced. We are making a switch over to Sophos Intercept Advanced.

What other advice do I have?

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Kaspersky Endpoint Security an eight.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
SG
Information Systems Coordinator at a insurance company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Good ransomware security with an easy initial setup and good scalability potential

Pros and Cons

  • "The initial setup is simple."
  • "It's a challenge to do system maintenance work on a notebook. You always have to disable Sophos first."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution as endpoint protection as well as for endpoint detection and response. It's like an EDR. It's basically used to prevent ransomware.

How has it helped my organization?

I would say that it's difficult to really say how it's improved our organization. We had never actually been hit by a ransomware attack prior to installing Sophos and never had Sophos tell us that we're experiencing one. That said, it's very important to be protected. Getting attacked would be a disaster.

What is most valuable?

We were looking for something that could sense ransomware attempts, to encrypt files, and cut off and reverse attacks as well as alert us to issues. That's what the Intercept X is designed to do. It's very good at security and protection. It offers very good reports.

The initial setup is simple.

The biggest feature that's on the server version that we're using, the EDR, is the ability to push data on threats that it's seeing over to another management platform, like a managed detection response service. It's nice that it's possible to do this and we don't have to pay so much attention to the alerts. They can for us.

What needs improvement?

It's a challenge to do system maintenance work on a notebook. You always have to disable Sophos first. Otherwise, it thinks you're a virus. It would be ideal if there was some sort of setting where you could warn the system it's just you in there doing routine maintenance.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've used the solution over the last couple of years. However, I haven't used the product too heavily.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is relatively good. We've had a few false alarms, however, there's nothing major that's happened so far. It seems free of bugs and glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I haven't personally tried to scale anything. It's probably pretty scalable because you don't have an appliance. Appliances have limitations as they have a set size or capacity. It is a cloud-based console, therefore it can probably scale pretty well.

We have 80 people in our organization and everybody uses the product.

How are customer service and technical support?

I'd rate technical support pretty high. I'd give them an eight out of ten. They're helpful. They are knowledgeable and responsive. We've been satisfied with the level of attention we get when we need them.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We didn't have anything previously for anti-ransomware. We just had the Kaspersky antivirus. However, it wasn't able to detect ransomware specifically. Therefore, we put Sophos Intercept X on to do that.

How was the initial setup?

We've found the initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex. We didn't have trouble setting everything up.

What other advice do I have?

We're using the latest version of the solution.

We've got Sophos Intercept X on the notebook computers along with Kaspersky and then on the servers it's only Sophos EDR, which has both antivirus and Intercept X. All are bundled together.

The console's on the cloud and that's just installed on the clients, however, they all communicate with a self-hosted JIRA cloud console.

I'd advise those considering the solution to probably just go with the antivirus portion as well. That way, you've got it all under one console. We're juggling two consoles, Kaspersky and Sophos. It would be easier if everything was under one.

ON a scale from one to ten, I'd rate this product at a nine. We've been very happy with it.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Other
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Get our free report covering Microsoft, CrowdStrike, Trend Micro, and other competitors of Sophos EPP Suite. Updated: October 2021.
542,267 professionals have used our research since 2012.