Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Reviews

Recently, I have primarily been using Kaspersky Endpoint Security for protection against ransomware. I also use this solution for file encryption. 

This solution is deployed on-prem. 

The most valuable feature is that it provides total security, everything in one. 

This solution would be improved if it were more compatible with Windows Server. There is not a client for Windows Server, like for Windows Workstation, so there are a lot of things you cannot control from the local system, or from the desktop directly. You have to control everything from the policy server, not from the client's side. The interface is kind of light, and it's not good—it could be more user-friendly. 

I have been using this solution for three years. 

This solution is a bit stable. The performance is okay, I'm satisfied with it. 

This solution is scalable. 

There are over 100 end users of Kaspersky Endpoint Security in our organization. We have plans to increase usage and buy more licenses because we have some more people. 

I have contacted technical support once before. I asked them for something, and they helped me. I don't think we have asked for help since then. 

Before implementing Kaspersky, we used Symantec. I've found that Kaspersky is better. 

The installation is straightforward. Sometimes it takes five to ten minutes, but it depends on the person. If the person is knowledgeable, it could take two or three minutes, but if not, it takes time. 

For deployment and maintenance, we have the system admin and a team of two. 

We implemented this solution ourselves. 

For licensing, we pay a yearly subscription. 

I rate Kaspersky a nine out of ten, and I would recommend this solution to others. 

Our primary use case is protection against spyware. We are partners with Kaspersky. 

The solution is easy to deploy, easy to use, and has a good detection rate. For the SMB segment, it's an optimal solution that is pocket-friendly, and easy to manage. They have a new training portal which is good. 

There were some issues with reporting which seem to have been resolved. I'd like to see them go to the next level by adding more products because they're restricted to endpoint protection for now.  

I've been using this solution for one year. I'm a company director. 

This solution is stable. 

To date, we've deployed to around 2,000 users without any issues - I can't comment on numbers above that.

I haven't needed to contact technical support. 

Kaspersky pricing is reasonable. If you compare it to other top brands such as Symantec and McAfee, Kaspersky costs 30-40% less.

I have also worked with Checkpoint Harmony which is good if you're in the enterprise segment. It gives a complete overview of what is happening in your organization, providing detailed information.

I recommend this solution and think that Kaspersky Antivirus is the best antivirus for SMBs. No doubt about it. That said, I do think the quality of service and ease of use is relatively comparable with any of the other top brands. 

I rate this product 10 out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for endpoint security. We protect servers and end point users by using Kaspersky solution with additional product of the same compnay if required . e.g sand box solution , EDR etc

It is a mature product and have been using it for long time. It is easy to use and its data base engine is very up to date. Kaspersky solution gives you piece of mind and confidence that you have a proper security against viruses and Trojan etc

We've had clients that used to use Symantec Endpoint Security before they started using Kaspersky. Initially, they were a little reluctant about it, about seven or eight years ago. However, after the first year, when they saw the performance of Kaspersky and the quality of the product and the support we provide, they had more confidence.  Kaspersky is simply more reliable than products like Symantec.

The solution offers very good protection. After almost ten years of use by a client, Kaspersky has not allowed any penetration of ransomware or any other viruses. Kaspersky has been able to repeatedly stop and resolve security issues.

The product is easy to operate and it is so mature in our client's network that they don't want to even look at other products.

All antivirus products offer more or less the same kinds of features. However, Kaspersky has, in my view, two or three features that actually put them apart with their competitors. One is called the System Watcher. What the System Watcher does is (in case of ransomware or if they executed by mistake any ransomware virus in their network) allow the user to go back and retrieve a specific moment in time to recover the whole computer or all of the data that existed then. That way, clients will lose a very minimal amount of data and they can get back to work as soon as possible as well. Otherwise, they know and we all know that once the ransom virus is executed on a network, it won't be possible to recover anything unless you pay the ransom and/or do other stuff. It won't be possible for you to get all your data back.

When they give you the Endpoint Security solution, they also include the feature like Application Control and Interaction, which is also a very good security feature for users.

They have a very good reporting system and they have a very good dashboard for the administrator, which makes monitoring everything easy.

From a business point of view, it's not likely applicable to them, however, I've noticed that they have separated out a few features which they used to support as one package. For example, they used to have DLP solutions in the Endpoint Security as well and they had sandboxing capabilities too. Now, they have separated it into a different solution or a separate cost. They are offering the DLP and sandboxing features with the endpoint as an add-on solution. I'm sure it makes them more money, to be honest. That said, if they had all of the features in the same product, it would be both helpful and put them far above any other competitor.

The solution needs to lower its pricing.

I've been using the solution for 12 to 14 years.

The solution is very stable.

I have been using it for a long time. I have seen it grow over the years and now I can say that it's a mature and very stable product. Over that period of time, I haven't seen it declining in any way, either from a support or a technical side. They have been improving it day-by-day and year-over-year. 

Every year, they bring on some new features. 

It's not a very new product. You don't have to go and explain every single thing about it or try to convince the other person, due to the fact that, in the Pakistan market at least, they have captured about 50% to 60% easily.

They basically have four different editions for Endpoint Security and they offer (from lowest to highest) Core, Select, Advanced, and then Total. You can scale it from the Core to the Advanced and to the Total anytime you want to. It's very easy to do so.

We've dealt with technical support many times. They are very active and very responsive.

I've used Trend Micro for two years and I'm also still working on Trend Micro these days.

We just started using it regularly about a year ago, due to the fact that the brand came back very strongly not only on a product-level but with their support system as well. They are making inroads and a few of their products are very good and tare gaining popularity in the financial sector.

In their endpoint solution, Kaspersky has taken out their DLP features from their product, however, Trend Micro has DLP solution in their product, which gives them an edge. Kaspersky, however, gives you the option to use it on the premises or the cloud.

I wouldn't say that the initial setup is very straightforward and very user friendly. However, it's not very complex either. With a little bit of training and a little bit of education, anybody - any engineer, any IT person - can handle it. Of course, that's once they get used to it, it becomes very easy for them.

If you talk about end-to-end deployment, and, for example, if you have 100 users on the network, it take about six to eight hours, or one day, to deploy everything. Therefore, if you have a bigger number of users, for example, about 500, then it takes about a week.

When I say about a week, it means that after deployment and installation of every single computer they have on their network, they need to still do the fine-tuning. Typically that means waiting for it to mature and fit into their network. Just a deployment without all of that taken into consideration may be just two to three days. After that, we give them two, three more days to see if there is any need to fine-tune the system or the administration perspective. That's how we calculate about a week's worth of time.

If it's a small network, up to 500 users, one expert technical person is enough to handle the implementation.

We tend to handle the deployments for our clients.

Depends how you look at it, since we have secured our environment using kaspersky, we are saving lots of money by not getting crashed or getting our network hack or let any one penetrate it for foul purpose.

Their pricing is quite high.

Yes, we have tried TrendMicro, Sophos and Mcafee.

We are vendors. We actually sell this product to our clients. We also use it on our premises as well. We do the R&D of all the products we use as well.

While many clients preferred the on-premises solution, recently, the trend has changed a little bit and most clients, especially after this COVID situation, have started working remotely from home. With that being the case, clients are now more inclined towards the cloud solution.

The solution can work easily for any size of business, from small, say for even from a single user, to an enterprise level. We have clients who are about 8,000 strong and we have a client who has got only 10 users and they are all happy about it. It's pretty much for everyone.

The advice I can give to other companies is this: they can believe and trust in Kaspersky's tech. However, we always advise our clients that, before they implement and deploy the product, they should learn about it as well. They should learn about how to manage the product, how to do the small stuff and to not rely on the vendors all the time.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We're using Kaspersky for antivirus protection and endpoint protection.

We're more familiar with Kaspersky's interface, and we find it more user-friendly. It also has more features than others, like with BitDefender and Mirco. The price is better, too.

I'd like to see them improve encryption and remote management in the future. Kaspersky could also improve its scanning technology. Other solutions have adopted machine learning and deep learning, but Kaspersky still uses signature-based scanning. They need to take advantage of new technology to revamp their scanning. Kaspersky could add more interactive features to their interface because it has been the same for six years. 

We've been using Endpoint Security for almost six years.

Kaspersky is stable.

Kaspersky is scalable. 

If we create a ticket today, they'll usually reply by the next morning. They have the option to get faster support, where they'll call within half an hour and collect information, but we didn't opt for that. 

Setting up Endpoint Security is easy. 

The price is reasonable. We evaluated some other vendors, but Kaspersky charges less and offers more.

I rate Kaspersky Endpoint Security eight out of 10. 

We use it for Endpoint security, and we manage client security antivirus and device control. We also use it for web monitoring.

The hardware hardware detection is the most valuable feature. The feature where you can block and unblock mobile devices is also good.

We would like it so that if a user uses it on-premises, the server should use fewer hardware resources.

I have been using Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business for eleven years. 

I rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It is a highly scalable solution. I rate it a ten out of ten. Around 178 users are using the solution.

The initial setup is straightforward. We deployed it in-house as well. It's very easy to deploy and integrate it with our main controller and implement it on our servers. It's two clicks. It's very easy to implement.

The solution is comparatively priced. 

It's a very good system. Its centralized dashboard is good. I would rate it a ten out of ten.

The normal use case was for viruses protection. The viruses were getting transferred through the internet and external storage drives to the end-users. However, I am seeing more often customers are going one step further and using a sandboxing environment for protection against ransomware.

When comparing Kaspersky Endpoint Security to any other solution, our customers like mostly the reliability, and the ability to defend against viruses, worms, and attacks. It is easy to use and very light on the end-user machine's resources.

I have been using this solution for approximately 13 years.

Kaspersky has two kinds of support. Our customers have a layer of support. First, they receive support from providers like us and if we are not able to solve their problem, we involve the distributors' technical support. The customer always has the option to open a ticket directly with Kaspersky, bypassing us. If they do not purchase the support from Kaspersky, then it takes a lot of time to solve a very minor issue from the technical support and development. There is a long queue waiting for support. However, if they purchase the support from Kaspersky, then the support is responsive and helpful.

I have used Trend Micro.

This solution is priced lower than some of its competitors. 

Kaspersky has introduced new products and upgraded versions of Endpoint Security. It is a bit complicated these days, especially their licensing. They are promoting customers to purchase the EDR, Endpoint Detection and Response, rather than going for the Endpoint Security only. The EDR requirement for deployment is a little higher, especially for mid-size or small-size companies. The server they require for the EDR or sandboxing is pretty heavy and costly. If they can reduce the price, then it would have been a good cloud solution.

The support from Kaspersky is purchased separately.

I have evaluated Carbon Black and SentinelOne.

They should have a minimum number of solutions available. They used to have only three or four, feature-wise, but now they have probably seven or eight. There are too many options for the client, they get it confused. All the features used to be in one solution, but now they have them all separated. For example, they used to have a DLP, scanning, and patch management in the Endpoint Security, but now they do not. They separated them into other solutions. It would be better for marketing, as well their customers too to combine the features.

I advise my customers that they should compare Kaspersky with other solutions, especially one which is already quickly gaining market ground, especially in this region, in our country, which is Trend Micro. Trend Micro is also very good. They are a comparable competitor against Kaspersky. Being on the neutral side, I give them both options to use, and then they can decide by themselves. However, Trend Micro is actually more expensive than Kaspersky.

I rate Kaspersky Endpoint Security an eight out of ten.

I primarily use the solution for endpoint protection. It's for security purposes.

The solution offers a very good antivirus if we compare it with other anti-viruses such as McAfee.

It's very good at detecting malware and blocking websites. It's great for local network monitoring.

The solution is more selective when looking at suspicious items. 

The initial setup was very straightforward. 

We have found the solution to be very stable.

The product can scale if you need it to.

We find that the solution uses up too much RAM and can slow down machines. We've noticed that after it is installed the server or computer begins to slow down significantly. It would be very helpful if they could make computers work faster, or, at least, not slow them down. In Indonesia, specifically many computers here do not have high specifications which is why it's such a problem for us.

The pricing could always be even more competitive.

I've been using the product for about one year now. It hasn't been too long.

The solution is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. it's very reliable, even when we update it.

We have about 60 devices using the product in our office. 

The scalability capabilities are very good, as it can use in a big network. It can be used across many computers or laptops.

I haven't personally been in contact with technical support, as everything goes centrally through headquarters in Hong Kong. That said, it's been quite stable so there are not many bugs and it's been very good. I don't recall having to reach out to headquarters to liaise with technical support on any issues. 

I previously used McAfee.

The initial setup is quite straightforward and simple. It's not difficult at all. A company shouldn't face any issues with the implementation process. We used the software for all the computers and laptops in the office and everything went fine.

The solution can be a bit expensive.

We're a customer and an end-user of the product.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. I can't recall the last time we updated it.

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

I'd recommend Kaspersky to other companies as it's very light and very compact.

We primarily use the solution for endpoint protection within our organization.

The solution offers many useful features. 

There is excellent integration with the app directory. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

At the moment, the support of XP and Windows Server 2003 is not there. At this moment I need to support of these platforms. However, Kaspersky does not these anymore. It's one reason why I decided to change to a solution that supports XP and our Windows Server, which is 2003.

The cloud needs to be more robust. We have 1,500 users and Kaspersky has issues handling them. It's a problem.

Other solutions (such as Malwarebytes) will scan the same files or areas and detect problems that this solution seems to miss entirely. It's not as secure as we would like it to be. It misses viruses.

Right now, you need to contract another console to integrate EDR. It would be ideal if Kaspersky also offered this instead of having to farm it out to another company. It would be great if everything could be centralized on one console as well.

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

I'm not sure how stable or robust the solution is. Things seem to get through. While Kaspersky doesn't detect any problems, if you run a scan on the same files using Malwarebytes, that product will find and recognize a virus, and yet Kaspersky does not. It seems that things can get through the detection system. It's not completely secure. 

The cloud isn't as scalable or robust as it needs to be. It doesn't handle the number of users we have very well. We have 1,500 users on the cloud.

It seems this particular solution is dated and needs to change to new requirements.

The technical support is good for the most part. However, I contract the solution with other partners. It's not technical support within Kaspersky. I contact my vendor and they give me support. The support requests don't go to Kaspersky, the company. It's going to another company, our vendor.

We are also using Malwarebytes, and they tend to catch viruses that Kaspersky misses.

We did not find the implementation process complex. The setup was easy. It was mostly straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process.

More or less, this is how long it took: the consult was about four hours and the deployment of the client for 1,500 users was more or less three weeks.

We are customers and end-users. We use a vendor that has assisted us with Kaspersky.

I'd advise those considering this or any other solution is to get data from the companies themselves and to do a good evaluation of the solution. They need to check how good viruses are covered and how often updated happen. Kaspersky needs to do more, for example, in this area.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. We've mostly been happy with it, although there is some more work that needs to be done.