Bitdefender GravityZone EDR Reviews

I used Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra for endpoint security.

The firewall security could be better.

I have been using Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra for approximately three years.

Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra is stable.

I have found Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra to be highly scalable.

We have approximately 10 people using this solution in my organization.

I have not needed to use technical support.

I have previously used Panda Security, and I switched because I did not trust it.

The initial setup of Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra was easy. The full process took two weeks.

I did the implementation of the solution myself.

We have the head of the IT department who does the deployment and maintenance of Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra.

I have not seen a return on investment with this solution.

When I first started using this solution I was paying $80 annually. I did not pay any additional fees. There are other solutions that are cheaper on the market.

I have recently changed from Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra to Check Point Harmony because my IT security partner recommended it.

Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra is a good solution, but it's not the best. The Check Point Harmony solution is cheaper, and the firewall is safer.

I rate Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra a seven out of ten.

The way I have it configured for most of my clients is that I go through and I do an analysis of where they need to go from basically giving them absolutely no access. I literally block everything. Then I start opening up their modules for content control. It's for opening up and giving specific users specific access that they need on the internet. I try to go with the zero access approach. That's my main approach. And that's how I usually use it. Obviously I have a couple of clients that wanted everything open and then they wanted us to go backward and to leave everything open and start closing things once in a while if they saw a problem.

The most valuable feature for me is the ability to whitelist, blacklist, and be very granular as to what I blocked, what apps I blocked, and what websites I block. I think that's probably the most valuable feature.

The tech engineers don't complain about much. It's solid. My biggest thing is that I want to have more than one option for my clients.

The software itself is solid. It would be better if it was more of a real-time solution, like SentinelOne. The one thing that holds me back on the SentinelOne side is that I can blacklist websites and stuff like that, but it's not as granular as Bitdefender. With Bitdefender, I feel like I have more control over what I can whitelist and blacklist.

Bitdefender is not designed to work in real-time. It's a signature-based platform, it's going to work signature-based in that there are times that it has to get updates. For example, if I'm managing a hundred machines with Bitdefender and the staff is having internet issues or something, and Bitdefender does an update within a week, not all the machines are going to be up to date at the same time. I have it configured to run every day at a certain time but unfortunately, a lot of the people that use it have really bad internet and I can't run it during work hours, I have to run it after hours and they shut their computers off. The first thing Bitdefender does is it goes and looks for signatures in the morning and then it runs the updates at night and then it runs scans at night as well. Sometimes it can go three, four, five days without any update. I've had some that go up to 27. The longest I've had was 32 days and it didn't even run one scan.

I have a client in the Philippines and right now, because of COVID, they're all over the Philippines and in the provinces where they have a really bad internet connection, it's a struggle. I have to schedule with them. The internet is so bad that I have six people using phone data to work because internet companies don't even go that far out for them to have a stable internet connection.

In those cases, I'm struggling a little bit with Bitdefender. With a regular office set up, it runs like clockwork. But with this new normal that we have right now, it's been a little bit complicated. That's why I'm looking to add Cylance. I have a demo with them soon.

I have been using Bitdefender for three years. 

Right now I have about 150 licenses. I use Bitdefender as my go-to. Bitdefender is the default for any new client that signs up.

I've never needed to use technical support. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. When I deployed, I deployed it through SolarWind software. It took minutes. I just uploaded the installer and I pushed it through the machines. It went through and it did the clean up of the default AVs that come when they buy the machines and it cleaned most of those up. There were a few McAfees and a couple of Nortons that we had to go in and manually use the McAfee or the Norton removal tool to get rid of those before the Bitdefender would install. But that was a very small percentage. It cleaned up most of them and it was running with no problem.

If we're in a regular office scenario, it's pretty painless.

My advice would be to do it. For the most part, I've been happy. I would definitely recommend it.

I don't know if the software has the infrastructure for it, but in the next release, I would like for them to add some AI and some more predictive capabilities. It'll run more on a real-time basis instead of near real-time. I think that would work for me. I think it would be great.

I would rate Bitdefender a nine out of ten. 

We implemented it as an antivirus solution in our enterprise two months ago. It monitors and defends our endpoints against viruses and malware.

Once we installed Bitdefender, we saw that servers that had been attacked by certain types of malware were protected. Our applications have some defect issues and Bitdefender has proven to be a good antivirus and malware solution.

They are constantly updating the solution against malware.

There is room for improvement in the communication between servers and endpoints. The performance there needs to be much better. When we install endpoints and they communicate with the appliance server, we notice a drop in endpoint performance. The endpoint automatically connects and the policies are applied to the endpoint but the performance does not meet our expectations.

In terms of additional features, I would like to see a remote desktop for installed endpoints so administrators can see what is on a user's screen or what a user is doing. A remote desktop between the server and the endpoints would be a useful feature in Bitdefender.

It's very stable. The only thing I recommend is that the communication between the endpoint and the server needs improvement.

It's highly scalable. The scalability is very good. However, some legacy solutions on Windows caused issues, but we were able to solve them ourselves.

Technical support has been good. They are kind and respect our issues. I have received the help I need.

We had cybersecurity issues with our servers. One of our servers was attacked by ransomware. After that, we decided to bring on a solution to defend our servers from such issues.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was so simple I did it myself. I didn't need to go to the manuals, other than a little bit at the beginning. After that I continued everything by myself. It was so easy.

The deployment took about two hours.

There is a good return on investment. It gives you the protection you need and, for network administrators, peace of mind, once you have installed this solution. All your data will be secured by Bitdefender.

A good thing about Bitdefender is its price. It has a suitable price for every company and organization. I evaluated a lot of antivirus solutions, but some of them were so expensive. The most suitable one was Bitdefender.

I have reviewed a lot of solutions such as Kaspersky and Avast Endpoint Protection. I tested them myself, although not in production. But Bitdefender has proven, when installed in the production environment, to be very stable, good, and reliable.

Don't spend too much time searching. You'll find it easy to deploy this solution. Just download and try the trial version.

In terms of maintaining the solution, it requires two people, a network administrator and a backup network administrator. At the moment we don't have any plans to increase usage, but in the future we will have more endpoints.

The solution is basically for endpoint security and, of course, at the server level.

It's a very stable solution.

The product can scale. 

There was a bit of a problem deploying. However, that was resolved. As it is now, we are at the stage of deploying it to the end-users.

Myself, I’ve been using the solution for three months.

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn’t crash or freeze. It’s reliable.

The solution can scale well. It’s expandable.

We have approximately 700 users on the solution.

We did struggle with the initial setup.

We deployed the solution on and off. However, the deployment took about three days in total. There were some gaps in between going back and forth with things.

We have about 20 technical people on staff that are able to handle deployment and maintenance.

Someone else handles the licensing. I can’t speak to the exact pricing.

I'm just also getting acquainted with it as this is a new deployment.

I don't work with it directly myself. However, it is used in my company. I’m an end-user.

This solution is so new that it’s hard for me to recommend it just yet. Once I settle with it, then I'd be in a position to offer more insights into how it works.

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

One feature I found valuable was controlling from the cloud. It was better for me that GravityZone could be controlled from the cloud. 

We are having trouble on the server side. But also on the endpoint side. For example, specifically on my computer, I couldn't run it, so I had to remove the program. I'm not using endpoint security for now, especially not Bitdefenders right now.

We find it's making the machines run slow. We're also having problems in the service groups. When we run GravityZone it suddenly goes very slowly. Some processes are bad and we can't use some features, so we had to uninstall some products from the service of some endpoint devices. We are using about 2000 endpoints and 2000 servers.

They seem to have problems installing for the client. We can't seem to find support when we do an install. Uninstalling it is a problem as well. Recently, I tried to uninstall from my computer and when I tried to deploy it, it was hard for me to uninstall it. I have found some tools, but it was really hard to remove it with them too. 

It must be optimized in my opinion. Because it makes the machine very slow. In the past, we were using ESET NOD32. It was very good, it was not making the machine slow. It was normal. The machine was fast when I'm used ESET, but when I started using Bitdefender it made my computer very slow. It's not just me. My colleague is complaining that the machines are becoming very slow after using Bitdefender.

They should make uninstalling easier and improve the service side, but also make it removable on demand locally. It needs to be removable from the local service, not the cloud.

From what I understand, we were going to program from the cloud, and have one policy from the cloud. Some policies would be okay. But my computer was not visible in the cloud. Normally it's good because if we can move it onto the cloud, it would make it easy. With the use of the cloud, we can move many computers at the same time. At the time we had more than 2000 devices using it. But I couldn't move my computer. It was bad for me.

We had issues with technical support. They kept saying that they were helping, but in reality, on the ground, we had problems. From the server side, we had issues. We had so many servers, but we weren't using most of them. We had a license, but we weren't using it.

Previously we just used ESET.

The initial setup was complex, plus the IT company was not using one individual for one program for one company. They are installing for other companies also. There are so many companies, they're not installing the quality program for another person, or for other companies.

It's different, ESET.  You must learn it very well. Because every time you're downloading ESET, you're downloading a different ESET. Its operation is not the best at supporting people with IT issues. The workload is much more than before. We must do the same job with fewer people. It's so much work. But it's harder than ESET.

We looked at Kapersky and a few more. Kapersky was better than this product. I knew the Bitdefender engine was used by so many devices and the engine was known very well. But as an antivirus program, Kapersky and ESET were better than this solution. But their price for the company was too much. In my opinion, Kapersky's server side is better.

If you move from the cloud and can find good support in your country, it's advisable. But otherwise, the next time, I think I'd not choose Bitdefender GravityZone. I would rate the solution a 6 or 6.5 out of 10. Because of the issues we experienced on the server-side.

I primarily use this product for antivirus and anti-malware. It is a next-generation antivirus solution.

I use GravityZone Ultra for conducting threat assessments.

It provides pretty good insights into threats within the network.

The performance is great.

It's not quite so easy to use, but it's good enough and powerful.

Using this product requires quite a bit of training, which is hard to get. If it were easier to use and there were more training available then it would be helpful.

We have been using GravityZone Ultra for a few months. We installed it this past January.

We are a solution provider and implement this product for our clients, as well as use it in our own organization.

This product is quite stable in our infrastructure.

It scales well for up to 220 computers. I don't know how it works beyond this point.

In my own company, there are only two of us who use it. Within our clients' companies, there are 98 users. Depending on the economy, our usage of it will grow in the future.

We have been in contact with technical support for one only issue, and it was solved after our second interaction with them.

We used Kaspersky and applications by other vendors. However, we switched away from them because of the licensing issues. The offer that we received from Bitdefender was pretty good.

The installation and initial setup are straightforward. It took us at most 10 days, going from computer to computer.

We deployed it with an in-house team.

Price-wise, we have a better licensing agreement with Bitdefender than we did with competing vendors.

Overall, this is a very good solution and if the training were easier to get, then I would give it a perfect score. It is one of the best and well-featured solutions at the moment, and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I like the style of it. It's great because I have access to it from anywhere. 

The solution can be improved by being able to pull up the localization key map of the user. Also, to be more international, not just American compliant.

I never had any issues, never had any bugs, it was very stable. I liked it very much.

I was in a daily rush and was put in touch with people who were selling the solution, so I was not left with a good impression.

I do wish the two solutions I picked up had the same way of working, but that's not the case. So, it's a compromise. I really like it; I really had a good time with the professional who pushed Bitdefender with me. He had a good experience. I don't know if I had the strength to set up everything. I needed to pre-offer the application, and I've tried Cryptids, pre-boot encryption on the drive, and BitCourse, which is Bitdefender's.

If you want to have a pre-boot, the password has to be set up using a keyed map, which is crazy, because nobody uses keyed maps. That's just a corporate failure and it's not acceptable when you see how much it costs.

The panels have also been able to bypass the security shell.

Unfortunately, the solution wasn't designed to be used in France. So I think it should be restricted to the American market.

For those setting up the solution, I would say get used to using core tying cable. 

It's much easier to deploy with the network, there's much more ease. I claim can do that for you, the HTTP management. But the way it was designed, it's not just designed for us.

Using BitDoctor for encryption isn't smart, because we're using Windows 7 Pro, and we can't use Bitcalc elements on Windows 7 Pro because it has to be committed Enterprise. There's no way we're going to buy it from SR Live Central just to get the disk encryption. And this is the whole point: you might as well get your own encryption engine and then just use that solution. Because with BitDoctor, you can encrypt the disk if you do a run dump, and then in the run dump you get the TPA chip and you can decrypt the disk. 

If I was an American, I'd give the solution an 8 out of 10. As a European, I rate the solution 6 out of 10.

We are using this for anti-malware and we have good features to protect us against viruses and malware.

It gives us the feature to block malware hashes. It has anti-phishing and ransomware vaccine.

The EDR feature is valuable. It helps us understand what is going on in our infrastructure. It provides a nice dashboard that gives us complete information of the status of the number of incident activities and we can also submit our file for the review.

In future, maybe this will need to provide cyber threat intelligence feeds which could help to have proper visibility of new security threats.

It is a stable product. 

We are scaling out, to more branches of our organization. We will definitely be increasing our usability in the future. 

They are responsive and provide you the solution with 24 hours (Depends on Time Zone).

Yes, I was using Trend Micro full suite. It didn't gave me advanced security features and it was quite difficult to manage. Secondly due to our bandwidth limitations we had to switch to cloud based solution with advanced security features.

The implementation was not that complex. We had a team that helps us implement it in-house. We downloaded the package, distributed it to our team and implemented it into our different branches. There are couple of other methods to distribute or install the package but we chose physical involvement of our team because of non technical staff in the branches and due to bandwidth limitation. We have more than 65 branches that received the package. 

We implemented the solution by our in-house team. Vendor was available on call, they are product experts and very responsive. 

The most important thing is pricing. Bitdefender is cost effective solution as compare to other competitors.

Yes, I tried to compare it with, ESET, Symantec, McAfee and Malwarebytes. Bitdefender won the race. Secondly they improving their features rapidly.