I just started up my first 2016 Server. I use ThirtySeven4 for my anti-virus but to install the client on Server 2016 you have to uninstall Defender first. Before I do I thought I’d get a fresh opinion on the question of Defender vs an AV product. In particular on Server 2016.
We prefer Thirtyseven4… better protection.
Any searches for this company appear prehistoric, Microsoft has made huge investments in security, I would do some serious research before abandoning the built in security tool.
I’ve been watching everybody else and haven’t posted until today. I am the “IT Director” for our church, as a volunteer, and oversee pretty much everything that’s technology and not under our Media Ministry Director. Wow, that’s a mouthful.
We made the decision quite some time back to remove Defender and deactivate all built in MS security. We went with Symantec only because they had the best non-profit pricing. We’ll switch to something else after the 1st year is up with Symantec as they have some pitfalls as well. All in, we steer away from Defender, it’s just not defending well enough.
Thirtyseven4 doesn’t appear in any current product comparisons:
Thirtyseven4 isn’t it’s own engine (from what I understand), hence it isn’t in those tests. At one time, at least, they used the Quick Heal engine.
At least as of 2017 they were still using QuickHeal.
We have been using 374 for years and never had a problem. Cannot beat their pricing either.
Does 347 cover all aspects of protection, not just AV? I did a quick brush on their website yesterday and am waiting for pricing from them currently. Symantec doesn’t cover all the bases well and timely, although I did receive a good non profit price on it thru Genesis Technologies.
Jamey - Protection options include firewall, browsing, malware, phishing, browser sandbox, IDS/IPS, external drive scans, auto-run protection, device control, email scanning, anti-spam plus the usual AV protections.
All - I’m a happy ThirtySeven4 user and am not questioning the ability or quality of their product. My OP question was really more questioning whether Microsoft’s investment in Defender has made it better or preferable to something like ThirtySeven4. Thanks for your replies.
Not sure how much stock I’d place on a comparison that included Avast and Kapersky (the most insecure security suite out there), and excludes Eset endpoint. I’d probably lean toward Eset or Siphos, but for the Church honestly, Microsoft’s security has gotten much better and is just as effective as most products out there these days.
I think that if there is a budget constraint then Defender should suffice.
Bitdefender for business controlled off their cloud is also quite good. Quite lite and fast.
Was using Sophos for years but when we switched over to their cloud version the performance wasn’t satisfactory; slow due to connectivity issues with their cloud. Slowed down browser surfing significantly.