Bitdefender GravityZone EDR Reviews

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 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.

When we are trying to eliminate the virus from the endpoint, and we are making some policies to block a USB port, we use this solution. We can enable an anti-phishing policy on it. If someone reaches a website that is not good, we directly get a notification. 

We can see if there are patches or if the applications are good or not.

The best thing I have found is that we have a centralized dashboard. 

The feature which I like is the anti-phishing feature. We get notified directly if someone might click on a phishing link.

The initial setup is easy.

It is easily integrated with our controller. However, it's not directly integrated with it. When we took our system endpoints in our anti-directory, we did not see them in our different antivirus directory. Once we install the agent in it, it'll show that. It would be good if they directly integrate with our anti-directory, so whenever the endpoints come into our domain, we can directly install the agent through the web portal into the endpoint.

If we could directly push the agent to the script, it'll be very good. We don't have to handle it manually.

A new user might have issues with the initial setup. It's easier to handle if a person is knowledgeable.

It would be ideal if they offered application patches.

I've used the solution for four to five years. 

Every person in the company uses the solution right now. There are at least 250 people on the solution. It's used on both Windows and Mac OS.

I've never personally contacted technical support.

The setup all depends on the user's knowledge. If a user is new, it'll be difficult. If they're used to it, it'll be easier. In my case, I have had some practice with it, so it will not be difficult for me. I would rate the seven out of ten in terms of ease of setup.

It doesn't take too much time to install the product.

We handled the initial setup ourselves in-house. We directly take the agent and install it on the portal directly. After that, the agent does all the work.

We're customers and end-users. 

We are using the normal version, not plus.

While anyone can use the solution, users should first go with their use cases. You have to see if the software is applicable to your environment or not. You have to know how you are going to protect your endpoints from the outside. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's good for protection and has good features. 

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.

The primary use of the solution is to obtain or to control all clients in only one place.

For example, with this, I can add patch management. For me, it's a good way to update the clients without, for example, a server from my company. I can manage the patch management for my clients from one simple central console.

The advantage of the solution is that it has a console on the cloud and you can update the clients. You don't need to put it on the server on your company or on-premise. You can manage the clients through the console on the cloud and you can send policies and updates and other things without the need to put a client into your own network.

Bitdefender has a EDR solution in the client. It offers protection for the exchange and can check services. It has a patch management feature, which is quite useful for us. 

We're able to implement a sandbox solution, to try to detect any malware on devices. It helps keep us safe.

So far, the solution has been problem-free. We have never had to reach out to technical support to troubleshoot as it just seems to work very well.

The reporting is much too simple. It should be more in-depth and offer more details and more information. They could really build out the reporting aspect of the product overall. We need more information, for example, about traffic and logs. It would be much more helpful if we had a bit more visibility.

We've never had to reach out to technical support. That's due to the fact that we haven't run into any issues at all. It's been very easy to use without any problems that would require an intervention.

We're resellers of this solution. We offer it to our clients.

In general, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been pretty happy overall with how it has been working for us. We have no complaints.

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.

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 an antivirus; it's our endpoint security.

This product is quite stable. I'm satisfied with the performance.

It's a scalable product.

I find the solution easy to use. 

We've had no issues so far.

The installation is straightforward. 

We'd like to have an encryption model within it. They need to improve their encryption capabilities. 

I've been using the solution for three years. It's been a while. 

The stability has been good. The performance is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability of the product is great. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem. 

I've never contacted technical support in the past. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. It's a simple installation and it was issue-free so far and therefore I've never needed help. 

I did not previously use any other solutions. 

The initial setup is straightforward. It's not difficult at all to implement it.

I can handle the implementation myself. It's not hard to do. You don't need an integrator or consultant to assist.

You do need to pay for a license in order to use the product.

I pay for a yearly license. 

Before choosing Bitdefender, I did not evaluate other solutions first. 

I have the solution deployed on my laptop. I use it for my own personal purposes. I am a customer and an end-user. 

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

I would recommend the solution to other users.