Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

NetWitness NDR vs Webroot Business Endpoint Protection comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

NetWitness NDR
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
59th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
Threat Intelligence Platforms (35th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (63rd), Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (24th), Network Detection and Response (NDR) (20th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (36th)
Webroot Business Endpoint P...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
42nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of NetWitness NDR is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is 0.7%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

SupravatMaji - PeerSpot reviewer
Beneficial single unified dashboard, good native application integration, and high availability
My advice to those wanting to implement RSA NetWitness Network is they have to first do a little due diligence, such as the exact requirement based on their needs. That will give them a direction for their investment because otherwise, the bill of material or bill of quantity (BOQ) may be higher side. It is important to do good due intelligence on the environment, see the exact requirement, and then go ahead with the solution. The solution is perfectly stable. I rate RSA NetWitness Network a nine out of ten.
Rick Cassel - PeerSpot reviewer
Lightweight and not hard to set up however, does not offer good reporting
We've had a couple of events both this year and last year where it just didn't seem to catch ransomware, which is impossible to do if someone has hands-on with the system. There were some things that they had or used to have or don't have that I still haven't figured out called journaling. And it was supposed to be a way to roll back changes that were made. However, they're telling me they don't have that. That's not in the system. It’s my understanding that it doesn’t actually scan any files at all. They just look at their database of files they've scanned previously, and either it matches or doesn't. That might be where the shortcoming is, is that it just can't stay up-to-date fast enough to stop new things that are coming in. It's an after-the-fact anti-virus. It doesn't do anything proactive. The virus has to hit the machine before it detects it. There is one thing that is deplorable with the product that I would change as soon as I found a better one. However, the reports are worthless. You go and look at a scan report and cannot get a log of machines. I can log into a console and see the files were scanned every day at 2:00 AM, and they all passed green or something was detected and removed. However, you have to go to the console. I don't have anything that I can send to my client on reports. What they give you is a bunch of bar graphs with no details. You can't drill down. It'll say two infections. However, it doesn't tell you what machines. You've just really got several different reports, and they're all just a bunch of graphs and wasted paper. There's nothing really substantial. The reports that I can use for client-facing, once a month, to say, "Here, we scanned all these workstations. Here are our results," don’t exist. They've got fake reports. I've screamed about that for years, and they just won't do anything. Therefore, I created my own little up-to-date or not ask fail-type report. I send that to them in place of a report directly from a product.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The interface of this solution is very flexible and easy to use."
"Ability to isolate the machine when there are malicious files."
"RSA NetWitness does market analysis in a more granular form. It gives you full visibility."
"Technical support is knowledgeable."
"It helps our security team respond more accurately when there are threats, then we get less false positives or negatives."
"It's a scalable solution. We have around five to eight customers using RSA NetWitness Endpoint, and we hope to increase the number of users."
"This solution allows us to locate the malware in real-time."
"It is very easy to use, and its usability is great. The use cases are also very easy. The visualizations of the use cases are magnificent. You cannot find this in any other solution. From my point of view, it is great."
"The solution has many features. It is very easy to define and set the policies based on the user groups, it does not take up a lot of resources in operation, and has provided us with a good track record of protection."
"Speed"
"It is very lightweight on the workstations, not slowing them down while still doing its job very well."
"The ease of use of the centralized admin console is its best asset."
"I rate the initial setup phase a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy."
"I like that Webroot is very lightweight. It didn't bog down the machine, and more importantly, it had heuristics artificial intelligence to some degree. It wasn't like full-blown artificial intelligence, but something where you have one endpoint recognizing issues because it maintains a cloud database. If one client recognizes a threat, it would add it to the database, and almost immediately, every agent in the world would also know about that threat. That was very appealing to us. However, now it's becoming commonplace, whereas ventures like Symantec and McAfee were based more on the traditional model of definition and updates, and we were always falling behind. Webroot also has pretty good technical support."
"They have a lot of features integrated from way back, which shows that the product developers know exactly what they're doing."
"It is pretty unintrusive. It doesn't take over the system like McAfee or Norton. It doesn't use a whole lot of resources. McAfee and Norton use a lot of resources."
 

Cons

"The initial setup requires a high level of skill."
"The deployment process is complex. I don't know why, but this solution will suddenly stop working. Logs stop coming. Often, one thing or another stops working. Most of the time, one of my team members is working with troubleshooting and working with technical support. Log passing is also one of the biggest challenge."
"The threat intelligence could improve in RSA NetWitness Endpoint."
"The solution is modular, for example you can buy the RSA ePack, which you buy as a module is not part of the conduit solution. They could include it and have it as an all-in-one solution."
"Threat detection could be better."
"RSA NetWitness Network could improve on integration with non-native application integration."
"I would like to see Security Orchestration and Response Automation (SOAR) integration."
"When analyzing something, you have to click several times. It requires a lot of effort to find something."
"I did notice that my OS slowed down, but I don't know if that's due to Webroot."
"They should provide more information on the type of cyber attacks."
"Usually, when it comes to reliability, McAfee and Norton are at 99 percent. Webroot's percentage is lower. It is 94% reliable in terms of what it catches, but you're trading that percentage for customer satisfaction because your computer isn't being constantly told that it just blocked something, or it just did something."
"I'm not happy with Webroot Business Endpoint Protection, for only one reason. It seems that it slows down my interface when I'm doing programming in Microsoft Access, tremendously."
"I believe that Webroot Business Endpoint Protection should offer a more modern UI."
"The only complaint I have with Webroot is its inability to prevent UoD phishing and its inability to check against bots or block anti-attacks. Plus the URL server is in zero-definition."
"One of the biggest pain points is that it's not really ransomware-oriented. They will be able to catch some, but that's where Sentinel One is a better player compared to Webroot."
"The console spins up relatively slowly, and some of the configuration items are obscure (e.g., reporting back one time per day is a default setting) and need to be tweaked."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"NetWitness Endpoint is less costly than its competitors, but it offers fewer features."
"With RSA, there is flexibility in choosing the service, products, and the range that meets your requirement, as well as they are flexible in terms of pricing."
"We are on a three-year contract to use RSA NetWitness Network."
"It is an expensive product."
"I do not have any opinion on the pricing or licensing of the product."
"The pricing is not very economical. It is a quite costly product for India. One thing is that when you purchase it, you have to purchase a module separately."
"They can easily adjust if you have the requirements which are required. If you have a budget cut or a budget constraint, they can bend."
"The cost depends on the number of endpoints that you want to monitor, but it is not expensive."
"The solution is pretty cheap, actually. At our level, which is at 2,500 endpoints, we're paying 87 cents an agent per month."
"If you purchase for clients, then you are the managing billing entity. It's better to either get a monthly subscription check from your clients, or to prepay for the year (so as to not keep cash in reserve to pay the bill each month) IMHO."
"Get a trial, then a multi-year license."
"Webroot is less expensive than SentinelOne."
"Our strategy was to overestimate the complexity and cost. It turned out that Webroot's assurance was justified."
"I can't recall the exact pricing, but I believe there is a monthly fee of $20-30 per user."
"The pricing is high."
"I rate the product's pricing a three on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. There are no costs in addition to the product's standard licensing fees."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
19%
Real Estate/Law Firm
13%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Webroot Business Endpoint Protection?
I haven't observed any of the instabilities in the solution. It is a stable solution.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Webroot Business Endpoint Protection?
Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is probably on the cheaper side, so I would rate their pricing a one or a two out of ten.
What needs improvement with Webroot Business Endpoint Protection?
Webroot Business Endpoint Protection needs to improve its ability to detect threats. It does not do what it's advertised to do. Real-time threat detection also doesn't work as it should.
 

Also Known As

RSA ECAT, NetWitness Network
Webroot SecureAnywhere Business Endpoint Protection
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ADP, Ameritas, Partners Healthcare
Mytech Partners
Find out what your peers are saying about NetWitness NDR vs. Webroot Business Endpoint Protection and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.