Back from a meeting with to guys from a ... well, the usual partner, reseller, consultant, solver company. Colleague security contracted them at some show. The usual twins: one sales, one techie-turned-consultant. Initially it was about Kaspersky but they have also McAfee in their portfolio.
If I were a noob I'd now be uninstalling Sophos instead of posting here. Both products are superior - Kaspersky performs much better because of it's nifty don't-scan-twice-when-nothing-has-changed technology and McAfee's ePO is the unrivalled management solution.
Both didn't really like Sophos (but they were careful to not to step on my toes - must've sensed that I'm somewhat in favour of Sophos) - the techie cause he thinks that while Sophos' AV-scanning is ok they are not much better at managing than Kaspersky (which is superior in detection technology) and the sales said that Sophos has been/is regularly undercutting their partner's offerings at the last moment. Can't say much about both claims. Fact is that while a few years ago higher education institutions here have flocked to Sophos some have (re-)turned to McAfee (I don't attend meetings and conferences so I can't confirm this).
The only technical item that stuck is that allegedly both competitors offer the option to exempt files accessed by certain processes (eg backup) from scanning.
All in all I missed a little bit "self-criticism". So if you considered one or the other competitor - why did you not choose him (or why did you, since this is an open forum)? They arguments I've heard are compelling ...
Christian
This thread was automatically locked due to age.
