Microsoft Defender XDR Reviews

Microsoft Defender is used for email protection. 

Microsoft Defender helps stop advanced attacks. We use PII disclosure, we track sensitive data in emails, ransomware, and phishing emails.

Microsoft Defender has saved us costs. 

Microsoft Defender has helped save us investigation time.

Microsoft Defender is slow to adapt to evolving threats.

I was using Microsoft Defender for one and a half years until a month ago when I switched to a different team.

Microsoft Defender is stable. 

Microsoft Defender is scalable.

I previously used Rapid7 InsightIDR for Security Information Event Management and Extended Detection and Response. While InsightIDR offered a user-friendly dashboard for managing detected incidents, its limitation of creating only around 25 custom rules restricted our ability to identify emerging threats. With the ever-evolving threat landscape, I believe a solution with a more adaptable defense system, like Microsoft Defender, is necessary to keep up with the pace of new incidents.

Microsoft Defender was straightforward to set up. It came with a lot of useful documentation to help.

The deployment took almost two months. 

Microsoft Defender falls within a mid-tier price range compared to other security solutions.

I would rate Microsoft Defender eight out of ten.

Microsoft Defender is well-documented and we can find answers to our questions from the user community.

I recommend Microsoft Defender for organizations that are already using other Microsoft products. Since they're likely within the same ecosystem, integrating Defender for antivirus protection should be a smooth process.

We primarily use it for endpoint security. Specifically, it serves as our solution for antivirus detection, malware detection, and related aspects focused on safeguarding individual devices. 

Its single-pane interface is a time-saving feature, as it eliminates the need to check different locations which is excellent for efficiency. It allows us to phase out the use of other security products. For example, we previously ran Sophos on-premises. However, upon transitioning to Microsoft 365 and leveraging the included Defender, we discontinued the use of Sophos. This shift not only streamlined our security approach with a unified solution but also contributed to cost savings, as everything is encompassed within the same license—a concept that aligns with the efficiency of a single-pane interface.

The most valuable aspect is that it comes included with the licensing, which is excellent. It provides a single pane of glass within the 365 admin interface, streamlining our experience by consolidating information in one place and eliminating the need to navigate through multiple interfaces.

It would be highly beneficial if CoPilot could identify anomalies within the network and notify the IT team. For instance, if a user typically accesses around a hundred megabytes of data daily from familiar files and locations but suddenly diverges to an uncommon destination, uploading ten gigabytes of data to an unfamiliar website, that would be a significant anomaly. Pausing such activity and alerting the IT team for a human assessment would be a valuable feature to ensure security.

I have been working with it for three years.

No stability issues noted, and there haven't been any concerns regarding false positives. Overall, the experience has been positive.

Scalability is straightforward; no issues are encountered. We predominantly use Windows 10, and so far, I haven't observed any issues. Some of us have transitioned to Windows 11, and it appears to function well.

We haven't contacted their tech support, which I consider a positive indicator.

In terms of ROI, our expectation is to gain a comprehensive analytical perspective by upgrading to E5, activating Sentinel, and deploying other products like Entra. This move aims to provide a more extensive understanding of user activities, login details, and other relevant metrics. Currently on a three-year Microsoft term set to end on April 1st, we've inquired with our vendor about transitioning from E3 to E5 immediately.

In our security solution evaluation, we considered Trend Micro and Sophos, focusing more on Sophos due to its cloud version. However, challenges in patching the on-premises Sophos led us to choose Microsoft Defender. The simplicity, inclusion in our package and regular patching made Defender more attractive. Additionally, our decision was influenced by community adoption, as no other law enforcement agencies in Canada were using Trend Micro. Defender's seamless integration and zero additional cost aligned with our strategy of opting for solutions without extra expenses.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

The summarization of emails is a valuable feature. I get more than 1000 emails a day. It is hard to read them all. Summarization makes it a lot easier. The solution also provides transcription features.

It doesn't work in Word, Excel, and PowerPoint consistently. We find it full of bugs. It doesn't work properly. The tool gives inconsistent answers and crashes a lot. I spoke with the Microsoft team regarding these issues. The person I spoke to said that our expectation was too high and that we should have expected that it would only operate at 70% accuracy, which was a bit of a shock.

I have been using the solution for four years.

We use most of E3 and E5. We're using 92% of the catalog. Everything runs in the cloud. In the past six months, there have been incidents where the cloud has had some issues. We've escalated them to Microsoft and have had a conversation about stability.

The tool is scalable.

The support is decent. It could be better in certain circumstances. Overall, it's acceptable for what we need it for.

We were using a Symantec tool before. We stopped using it because we were exiting a relationship with the Symantec tools. We chose Microsoft Defender for Office 365 because we had a relationship with Microsoft, and it did similar things to what we used the Symantec tool for. It was an easy choice.

The initial setup was complex. It doesn't work. Semantic Index takes 48 hours. Getting people to onboard is not as simple as turning it on and making it work.

We have to ensure that we are teaching people about these tools, their value, and the use cases to determine whether they will use them. If we turn it on and somebody is not trained to use the tool, they will abandon it. It's still not functioning properly. It's a bit of a risk for Microsoft to push out a tool that's not ready yet.

We did the implementation ourselves. We have a large enough internal team.

The solution is too expensive. Each license costs us $30.

Google is an alternative. The comparison is based on market share, penetration, usefulness of tools, and cost. Microsoft has the lead. It's embedded. We use it as a productivity suite for our company. Excel, Word, and PowerPoint are tools that people use on a daily basis.

The tool provides a little bit of unified identity and access management. It's not the most important thing for us. Security is a multi-layered strategy, and Defender is one aspect.

The product is one of the many tools we deploy to ensure that the lateral movement of advanced attacks does not occur. If it were the only tool we had, I wouldn't be as confident in saying that we have the proper levels of security, but it is one of the multiple tools we have. So, lateral movement is almost impossible.

The solution might be able to adapt to evolving threats in a smaller shop. However, it is not so in our organization.

We run a bank. We are testing out Copilot. We're about to roll it out to several thousand users. The tool hasn't yet helped improve things in our organization, but it has the potential. Copilot is new. It's difficult to determine the ROI and its value. It's hard to tell. We do get some value out of the product.

Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.

We implemented Defender two and a half years ago, utilizing it in a passive mode with only the sensor active for data collection and basic EDR results. Although it has been running on all devices, we are currently in the process of making the final transition from the existing setup to fully leverage Defender as our EDR solution.

We utilize analytics on both iOS and Android platforms, and it holds significant importance for us. Compliance with mandates, often stemming from executive orders, requires meeting specific contract requirements. In response, we employ analytics to implement and maintain controls consistently across various device types. The capability to adapt to emerging threats is of utmost importance to us. We lack the time and resources to constantly learn about new indicators and threat actors. We expect that the threat intelligence from Microsoft and other providers seamlessly integrates into the system, enabling automatic updates based on the current global threat landscape. The unified single pane of glass is a significant benefit. It consolidates everything into one interface, eliminating the need to navigate through multiple portals for information.

The greatest value lies in integration, I believe. The ability to integrate and observe a more cohesive narrative across the products is crucial.

There are still some components, such as vulnerability management within the vendor product, where improved integration would be beneficial. Currently, it's not visible in the same interface, requiring us to search elsewhere to access that information. While it has streamlined data collection and retrieval, there's still room for improvement in terms of user-friendliness for certain individuals. While the ultimate goal is to enhance security, there's room for improvement in terms of pricing.

We are currently in the migration process from Sophos to Microsoft Defender.

It offers high stability.

The backend infrastructure and structure in place seem to be easily scalable to meet our requirements.

Customer service and technical support vary. Opening support cases for different components within the security stack or Microsoft entity often reveals that first-level support is lacking. It typically takes two or three weeks to get an escalation, and by then, the issue may have resolved itself. Escalations are challenging, as first-level support struggles to comprehend the problem, leading to repetitive discussions. I would rate it four out of ten.

Neutral

We transitioned from Sophos to Microsoft Defender primarily due to cost reduction and the elimination of duplicated technologies.

The initial setup used to be complex, but now it's much more streamlined.

We follow a phased approach for deployment, beginning with a proof of concept pilot. However, our main deployment cycle revolves around Defender, facilitated via Intune, where all devices are managed. Building the package and incorporating scripts into Intune is the key process for the sequential implementation, which has evolved over time. Maintenance involves keeping pace with changes, not just patching. Microsoft has significantly improved patch cycle management, but dealing with the constant stream of changes they introduce remains a challenge.

It proved to be effective in cost savings. Our return on investment is tied to the existing investment in the current SKU. We anticipate not only recouping the dollars spent but also gaining the advantage of a unified interface, a single pane of glass. This consolidation allows us to streamline our operations, saving valuable time and effectively reclaiming productivity that would otherwise be spent navigating between different platforms on a daily basis.

When seeking a security suite, even with an E5 enterprise license, additional purchases are still necessary. The license cost for a year is approximately forty-four thousand, and this annual saving is a significant factor in our decision to switch.

In the past, we explored alternatives such as Carbon Black and Cylance, particularly for their machine learning and AI components, which were quite innovative at that time, approximately three years ago. However, our approach has evolved, and we've shifted significantly towards the Microsoft Stack. The decision is influenced by our existing environment, where we can readily assess the capabilities available within Microsoft.

The critical aspect is comprehending your existing setup. During our migration, we opt for a like-for-like transition instead of going for something entirely new, as the latter could be disruptive to some processes. Defender offers extensive capabilities, but understanding where to begin is crucial to avoiding disruption. Start with a like-for-like migration and plan the subsequent ramp-up to align with its capabilities. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

I primarily use the solution as an engineer. I use the product to protect the endpoint and I use it to protect my customer's environment. 

The web protection on offer is very good. For a company that doesn't have a firewall, it's quite useful.

It gives feedback and helps protect internet access. It provides you with analysis on the state of the environment and you have a direct link to Microsoft which is doing its own research on security. You're constantly getting feedback from Microsoft resources so that you can be up to date in your own environment and you'll have a better understanding of the security landscape. 

The solution is great for companies on a budget.

Defender provides helpful visibility into threats. It covers a lot and comes with a next-gen antivirus. With that, you can register to the cloud, and, if you have cloud protection, your environment is protected even more. 

It helps us prioritize the threats across our enterprise. It covers all of our devices. You can cover your entire operation with the license you purchase.

Microsoft 365 Defender is easy to integrate with other products. You just have to configure some things in order to integrate everything and you are SDR compliant. We currently have it integrated natively, so we don't have to worry about configurations.

The comprehensiveness of Microsoft's threat detection is good. Microsoft provides a lot of security. It gives you visibility and IT has a lot of control over everything. You can see your environment, including clouds. You can block things within your environment as needed. The applications are easy to manage. It also has app governance to be able to gain visibility into permissions.

The product has helped automate routine tasks and the finding of high-value alerts. It has an automatic investigation feature that you can enable. It's great for automation. Thanks to automation, it has helped reduce the time it takes to analyze security events and alerts. You don't have to wait to take action. If there is a threat, you can neutralize it faster and it will record everything for audit records. While I know it has saved us time, I can't quantify that into a specific amount of hours.

We no longer need to look at multiple dashboards. Now, everything is centralized under one dashboard. 

The product's threat intelligence helps us prepare for potential threats and take proactive steps. Since we've been using it, we've had no security incidents.

The only issue I've had is, when it comes to deployment, the steps I must take around policy setup. That is challenging. We're working on the onboarding and configuration policies. We're collecting feedback from customers and partners in hopes of refining the future design for deployment.

I've used the solution for about two years.

The feedback I have received from customers is that the stability is very good. 

The product scales well.

If you have a license through a partner, it's the partner that will support you.

The only issue with Microsoft is the response times. They are very competent, however, sometimes you will send an email and get no response. 

Neutral

I previously used Sophos. I then switched to Microsoft Defender. The Sophos deployment is quite easy in comparison. You can do everything from a single portal. They had already achieved effective centralization. 

Right now, there are two different ways to onboard. You might have to have a different partner to configure policies. However, right now, you can also create policies from the activity center, so you don't have to do it from the device itself.

How long a deployment takes depends on your scope and the number of devices you are covering. 

If you do not get a license for the portal, you'll have to use the manual to deploy. If you have an older server you may encounter some issues. However, if you upgrade the server at the same time, you'll have fewer problems.

We do use more than one Microsoft security product. We've integrated with other products. 

I do not make use of the directional sync capabilities at this time. I'm also not using Microsoft Sentinel.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If the deployment of the agent was better, I'd move my grade closer to ten. It should be more automatic. You also shouldn't have to install the logs. 

We mainly use this solution for security reasons. We use it for the complete stack of email security so we don't have to use a third-party tool, and we use the extended security features that are included in M365, like sandboxing.

The solution is deployed on the Azure cloud. We're a cloud-only company, so we only deploy cloud workloads, but we also have customers with legacy systems. If we're not able to migrate them to Azure, Defender for the server can be deployed on-premise.

The solution is deployed across Germany in four regions: Munich, Cologne, Bremen, and Hamburg. However, most people work from home.

There are about 50 endpoint users, but we have customers with thousands of users. We focus on customers with a thousand seats or more.

We use the entire M365 E5 license for everything that's going on in the M365 world. We try to accomplish everything we need with Microsoft products.

It was very easy to integrate the solutions. We integrated them so we could have an overall good view of our assets. The installation was fully automated via Intune.

Overall, the solution has decreased our time to detect and respond. If there is any issue, it's not complicated to get the information we need and respond quickly. We offer managed services to some customers, and we have a very clear view of what's going on in their security environments.

One of our main focuses is IT security. This solution has a huge impact on how we use tools and what we do in IT.

One of the biggest points is that Defender is included in the license. It's integrated fully into the M365 world. There's no need to have a third party, which is more complex and includes additional costs. Especially because we're partners, it's very good to have 100 free licenses. We're able to distribute all the information to our customers and integrate it into our projects in a very streamlined way.

We saw all of these benefits instantly. It's different with customers because they are often heterogeneous in the software they use. There's a little bit of explaining and promoting, but it's a huge benefit for most of our customers when they understand that they can have a centralized view of all these security topics. If we are able to deploy the solution to new customers, the benefits are realized in about six months because we have to train them and implement all of the security.

The solution helps with finding high alerts. I wouldn't say it helps with automation because we are piping the problem into the Jira automation, so our managed service kicks in. I would say that it's half-automated.

It helps save time when it comes to the operation and receiving information because we don't have to skip around with different products and customer situations.

This solution enabled our security operations. The legacy approach, in which the tools are in place and someone occasionally checks them, is not secure as it's meant to be today. 

It eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards and gives us one XDR dashboard. The consolidated dashboard helps our customers get a faster view, which wasn't possible with the former solution.

The solution's threat intelligence helps us prepare for potential threats before they hit and to take proactive steps. Our security team is able to work well with it, and a lot of information is getting to our internal users. We distribute everything we learn to our customers.

Sentinel enables us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem because we're cloud-only, so there is no other architecture to monitor.

I would say the logging and analyzers are about 80% of our security operations. The ability to have a clear view of the security information is a big win. For legacy implementations, it's normal to have the security installed but not be able to monitor, detect anything, or get the information to the right people.

For the most part, Sentinel enables us to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place. Today, there are different views, different websites, and different portals to use in order to drill down and get to the real problem. It's a good starting point.

I like the easy integration and advanced possibilities. We can implement it at customer sites in a few clicks, but we can also dive deep and drill down to extended features. There's a very good starting point to get into this product and all the features from Defender. We use Plan 1 for email security because it's a common vector for phishing and attacks. The Plan 2 version goes more into advanced features and logging, which we also use for our internal security operations center.

The solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across our environment by about 80%. There should be something to get a consolidated view, which doesn't exist at the moment. We have a known tool in place to consolidate all the information into one view for us. That would be a perfect function to have in the future.

I have more than 15 years of experience in IT security, so I have a very good understanding of the tools we need for a use case. I think the documentation helps us and all of our customers comprehend the product. For cloud products, it's normal that something new today is almost outdated tomorrow. Company-wide, we have a very good view of all these products, and we're very firm in deploying them.

I would like more of the features in Defender for 365 to be included in the smaller licenses. Even if I buy a small license and don't need everything, security shouldn't be a question. Security is one of the main aspects of all projects from our side, so it would be nice to have more features in the smaller licenses.

I would also like a more aesthetically pleasing dashboard. For German customers, it's important that the solution is in German. Multi-language support should be in all the features if possible. In many projects, we want to use digital signatures on emails. It would be perfect to have better integration of digital signing in a standard way.

In the last few months, the dashboard changed very often. When they restructure it, it's a little bit painful. Otherwise, the technology is very helpful.

The visibility into threats could be better. For the last six months, getting information from the access points has been difficult. However, the newest version fits very well. It's easy if you've found the right spot to view what's happening.

For legacy organizations or legacy customers, I would say it's possible to save time, but time-saving isn't always the best with security because it needs to be deployed and managed.

It can be installed quickly, but it takes time to check out false positives, have everything in place, and train each end user.

We have been using this solution for five years since our company started. The solution had a different name, but we have been using it since it's been available. We use company-wide E5 licenses.

The solution is stable.

We haven't had any scalability problems.

I haven't had a lot of contact with technical support.

For my personal project, I used many other legacy projects, but not at my company. We aren't selling anything other than the new Microsoft solution at the moment.

The solution doesn't require any maintenance.

We have seen ROI in project situations because we removed legacy email gateways and legacy antivirus on-premise solutions.

I would like to have more security features in the lower licenses because not every customer is able to buy E5 licenses. The bundling isn't always easy for our customers to understand. Compared to other tools, it's a good price.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. 

My advice to those who are looking to implement this solution is to get help from the right company so you can use the solution properly.

Defender helps us prioritize threats, but I would say it's a combination of all the information that we're getting from the internet and from other resources.

To a security colleague who says it's better to go with a best-of-breed strategy rather than a single vendor security suite, I would say that it depends on the customer. If someone has their own VSOCK implemented and many security guys on board, then maybe best-of-breed is what they need. 

If someone is a classic customer who doesn't know a lot about security, then they should stick to a one-vendor strategy.

I am the head of IT of the police force in the Madrid municipality. I have deployed the product to all 6,000 policemen and police women here and we are trying to protect all our devices with it.

It has helped eliminate having to look at multiple dashboards. This is a part of the benefit of the integration. It's quite helpful to receive information and data that is correlated with other information, in the form of a graph or chart. It's a good added value. We are provided with consolidated information, which is very valuable for making decisions and moving forward in improving our devices and our security.

It's very well known by all our technicians and it has helped to decrease the time to detection and response.

And while I can't demonstrate it with metrics, my intuition is that we have saved money. Because we are a very large organization, we have very large needs in IT systems. Perhaps the best thing we did, years before, was to have everything, all applications and the operating system, come from Microsoft. Perhaps that means potential money savings.

The most valuable feature of all is the full integration with the rest of the software in the operating system and Office 365, as well as Microsoft SCCM. It is quite easy for us to work with the whole instance of Microsoft products. This integration improves the benefits of the whole suite of products. Even the desktop devices seem more productive by having all these products integrated. That's the best advantage.

I'd like to see a wider solution that includes not only desktop devices but also other devices, such as servers, storage cabinets, switching equipment, et cetera. That is where they should put in more effort. I don't have a global risk solution coming from Microsoft, one that could help me in all these different IT areas.

I have been using Microsoft 365 Defender for about two years.

I would rate its stability at seven or eight out of 10. It's quite good. Up until today, we haven't had any big problems with the solution. I'm quite comfortable with it.

The solution is deployed to more than 25,000 in the municipality, but my responsibility is only over 6,000 people in the police corps.

Microsoft provides quite good support across their different areas of activity. The people attending to your requests are quite professional. They take care of your requests and respond to your needs. They try to help you. The documentation is not the best in the world, but it's quite sufficient for our needs.

Positive

Years ago we had solutions from other companies, such as Trend Micro for the desktop devices, and Trend Micro and Sophos for servers.

We used to work in different ways. Some people were in the office with desktop devices, but most of our people work outside with mobile devices. The latter group is at much more risk and we wanted to protect all these devices from potential damage and risks.

The switch was a company decision made by higher management within the municipality. We started to work with Microsoft Office 365 years ago, and then a decision came down imposing the use of Microsoft 365. I feel comfortable with the decision, but I know inside our organization that we've had plenty of problems deploying all facilities given by M365.

I'm not aware of having more or fewer problems with this product than the ones we had before, when it comes to deployment or interfaces. It's quite standard and the deployment was quite easy, but it was equally easy to deploy all the products years ago.

It has been easy to integrate with the rest of our devices and software. In addition, there was no impact on the user experience. The solution is transparent. The users may not even know of the existence of this product. There was no problem deploying and starting to use Microsoft 365 Defender. We have some other products, beyond the desktop level, that work in a coordinated way Defender.

The deployment took a few months, but we needed at least a year to stabilize our organization. The first days were awful because people couldn't understand the change in mentality required to work with this paradigm of software. During the first year, we had to cope with plenty of incidents and problems. Having passed the one-year mark since we deployed, we have started to see some of the benefits.

I generally use an "onion" deployment methodology. I start deploying new solutions in desktops that are quite close to my area of activity in the IT department. We implement, let's say, 50 to 100 desktops per day and we wait for a week to see if everything is okay and whether there are incidents. Once we are assured everything is fine, we implement by regional police units in different locations.

We had 10 to 12 operations technicians involved in the deployment.

Every software solution requires maintenance. In this case, there isn't a lot of maintenance. We have to keep an eye on the status of the solution every day. That process involves two or three people.

As most software companies have done during the last few years, they have moved from a licensing model to pay-per-use. It was difficult to understand and accept this change. When we had to accept that model, it had a great risk for companies like ours that always have to cope with annual budgets. The question is: What happens if, for any reason, there's not enough budget to accept this model? That could be a great problem.

There was a possibility of continuing with the solutions we had been working with.

But we cannot compare them because the other solutions were built eight years ago. Technology has changed so much.

Fortunately, we haven't had the chance to see if the solution's threat intelligence helps prepare us for potential threats before they hit. But I'm quite sure that it's working together with other tools to help us to stop potential breaches and risks.

Give this product a chance. Is it the best in the market? I don't know. Is it the worst? I don't know. But what is quite good is the integration with the rest of Microsoft's software products. That's the added value.

Try it, prove it, and see how it integrates. It depends on the situation. If a colleague is using Linux in their data center and desktops, of course, I wouldn't recommend this solution. But here in Spain, most companies have Microsoft products.

The product replaced Sophos, a third-party product we used, helping us save money equal to its yearly subscription. The product saves us time. We do not have to interfere. It just keeps running.

Considering we haven't encountered any technical problems since we started using it. It is working as intended. It has great stability.

I don't know if that is Defender's feature, but more active monitoring for data breaches would be beneficial. There could be a way to proactively monitor unusual activity versus just depending on viruses and malware. If the traffic seems unusual, it could detect anomalies and update us. It would help us stop malware attacks ahead of time.

I have been using Microsoft Defender XDR since 2015.

We never encountered stability issues.

Whenever we add a license, it automatically sets the account for a new user.

The initial setup process was fine and similar to Office 365. We had to get our email server lifted externally from the premises to the cloud. It is easy to use once all applications are deployed.

Microsoft Defender XDR is already included in our Office 365 licensing. It is better because we're saving money by using it.

The product was included with the Office 365 licensing that we had. So, we decided to try it out. Before that, we were using Sophos.

I haven't run into that particular instance where the security features have extended beyond Microsoft technologies. The only products we use outside of Microsoft are proprietary lockdown applications, and it's not really an issue there.

During staff training, we've been using Intune to detect phishing attempts. It hasn't detected anything in that aspect. However, it has the ability to check for malicious attacks preemptively.

I rate it a ten out of ten.