MetaDefender Reviews

MetaDefender is used in one of our client environments where every file upload to their web portal goes through the scanning process. It scans using multiple engines and applies CDR before allowing the file into the system. This has helped us stop suspicious documents even before users interface with them.

With the increase in phishing and document-based attacks recently, this kind of file sanitization layer has become very important for us.

MetaDefender offers some of the best features such as multiple engine malware scanning, content disarm and reconstruction (CDR), deep file inspection, and strong API-based integrations. Deep file inspection is the feature I find myself using the most, as it helps in my workflow significantly. The multi-engine approach gives more confidence compared to relying on a single antivirus engine, especially for zero-day threats.

MetaDefender's effectiveness in blocking or sanitizing content based on policy is very strong. A combination of multi-engine scanning and CDR makes a big difference. It does not just rely on a signature; it enforces policy at the file level. Policies like blocking files with high-risk indicators, sanitizing documents with embedded macros, and allowing only clean files into the environment show its strengths. MetaDefender is very effective in sanitizing files without breaking usability. The integration of multi-scanning and Content Disarm and Reconstruction affects our data security operations. MetaDefender plays a very important role in today's threat landscape, which heavily uses documents and file-based payloads.

The UI can be more user-friendly, and initial steps and policy tuning take some time. Reporting can be improved as extracting detailed insights for management reports takes extra effort.

I have been using MetaDefender for 1.5 to 2 years.

MetaDefender is stable. We have not faced major downtime.

MetaDefender's scalability is excellent, as it handles larger volumes of file scanning without major issues.

Support for MetaDefender is very responsive, though sometimes complex issues take time to resolve.

We evaluated sandbox-based solutions and some email security tools, but MetaDefender's CDR approach was more practical.

MetaDefender has positively impacted my organization by reducing the risk of file-based attacks, which has significantly improved our overall defense against phishing and malware delivery techniques. We have seen around a 40% drop in malicious file incidents, and our SOC team is spending less time on manual file analysis now.

MetaDefender is a very time-saving and effort-saving tool. I advise others looking into using MetaDefender to understand their file flow properly before deployment. If integrated correctly, it becomes a very strong layer against modern file-based attacks.

Threats in a file are cleaned before they reach the core, creating a silent shield in place. The SOC workload has reduced because fewer suspicious files reach analysis, and users do not complain much since files still open normally after sanitization. I would rate this review an 8.

My main use case for MetaDefender involves managing endpoints and malware detection and vulnerability assessment. It is an encompassing platform that performs vulnerability assessment, endpoint protection, and malware detection.

We were tasked to protect some endpoints, and they wanted everything to be reported to a particular dashboard, so we had to deploy the agent on each device. The deployment was very seamless, and as an admin, I could do a whole lot of things, such as disable ports, perform DLP, and use many features including Content Disarm and Reconstruction, which is very effective. We also used it on mobile devices.

The main use case was simply protecting the endpoint and being able to do a whole lot of things remotely on those endpoints because the agent is sitting on them. It is very good for remote working, and you can be assured that your devices are protected with MetaDefender.

MetaDefender has positively impacted my organization by reducing the number of attacks we receive. Most of the attacks we got before we started using MetaDefender were unpremeditated and unplanned. Now, using MetaDefender, we can rest assured that we have excellent endpoint protection, which is more advanced than regular antivirus. This has helped us reduce our expenditures, and our users can work freely without the risk of getting attacked.

The mean time to restore has really gone down. Before MetaDefender, it could take more than an hour depending on the kind of impact, but now, in less than ten minutes, we are back up, which is very good.

The best feature MetaDefender offers is Content Disarm and Reconstruction because if there is malware in a particular file and the agent is sitting on it with Content Disarm and Reconstruction enabled, it is going to remove the malware and give you the exact file you need without you even being aware, which is a very good technology.

One of my experiences with Content Disarm and Reconstruction is that I intentionally wrapped a payload into a file and sent it to a particular device on the network to see if this really works. Upon the user clicking it, it was supposed to ransom the user's computer, but it was able to tell the user that this is a malicious file and it would undergo Content Disarm and Reconstruction. Upon clicking, it removed the payload and gave the user the real file beneath the wrapped malware.

Regarding my main use case and how I use MetaDefender, the use of DLP is very important because I work in a setting where you do not want users to exfiltrate your data. Some ports have been shut down, such as USB, and we do not allow external USB devices. DLP helps us to make sure that the USB port will be disabled, and you can also shut down the device if it is stolen. You can run malware detection periodically, and you can configure a lot of policies, which I was able to do using MetaDefender on those devices.

Regarding MetaDefender's AI capabilities, I think the governance and security are good. It is compliant and gives you an overall score of your device to see if it is compliant.

MetaDefender has been dependable for me because if I come into contact with a roadblock, I can ask the AI, and it really helps me twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

My impression of the detection rates provided by MetaScan multiscanning is that they are very reliable and can be trusted. While using it, I switched off my Windows Security to see if it would detect threats, and it did, providing recommendations that help you manage your security effectively.

I use adaptive sandbox analysis, which places the file into a sandbox to see its behavior, and it gives me the metric for it. Regarding file-based vulnerability assessment before deployment, it performed a vulnerability scan and provided patches without me having to look for them, and all patches were easily applied from the console screen.

I hope that MetaDefender could improve by integrating more advanced features that are not currently available. I understand it is still OPSWAT, but I wish it could be more encompassing.

I would like to see specific advanced features, such as Kiosk, which I have not reviewed but I know OPSWAT has different features apart from MetaDefender that might be more advanced. However, MetaDefender is very good for SMBs and medium-level businesses.

The effectiveness of Deep CDR in reconstructing files safely and without signatures works, but for bigger files, it takes a long time. Sometimes, I have to strike a balance between scanning the file and a user needing it, but I know it does work, especially when using behavioral analysis and sandboxing.

I came across MetaDefender during one of my projects where we had to secure some endpoints and needed endpoint protection. It has been about several months ago, and it has been really great so far.

MetaDefender is stable and reliable during use. It is very easy to uninstall and off-board, and it protects mobile devices, an area where most other solutions have not been able to perform well.

The scalability of MetaDefender is very good. It scales well as my organization grows, allowing for adjustments as needed, and it does not have a pay-as-you-go pricing plan.

Customer support is very responsive, reaching out to me back in less than ten minutes during their work hours. There is also an AI chatbot that can provide solutions or escalate to the support team if needed. I give their customer support a perfect score of ten out of ten.

Previously, we used different solutions such as Qualys and Nessus, and we are currently using ManageEngine to see the features of these products and make a decision. Not that either solution is bad, but we need to choose what is best by trying each of them.

Nothing much is needed for improvements since it was linked with Active Directory, allowing all our computers online to receive the agents. We also used startup scripts to automatically start the deployment when all devices come up, so the deployment was great.

I cannot assess the return on investment with MetaDefender since we never invested in it. We only used the trial, and I can answer that once we make a decision on whether to proceed with it.

I started with a thirty-day trial for pricing and setup costs. Right now, we are in the process of comparing ManageEngine and MetaDefender because we are currently using ManageEngine Endpoint Central.

Before choosing MetaDefender, I evaluated it against Nessus and Qualys, and now we are using ManageEngine Endpoint Central.

I rate MetaDefender a nine out of ten. I chose nine out of ten because it loses that one point due to the advanced features that are probably not there and also the pricing. We used the trial method first to test the product, and for the job I needed it to cover for the SMEs, it was able to cover all the endpoints and do the job well.

Honestly, I have not reviewed the enhanced reporting and audit visibility features, nor have I tried automating it, but it is something I am planning to do to ease my job as an administrator.

My advice for others looking into using MetaDefender is that it is a great product with a lot of features your organization would need. The policies are easy to control, and navigation is not hard at all. Additionally, it does not take much CPU. My overall rating for MetaDefender is nine out of ten.

My main use case for MetaDefender is on my devices. I have a specific example of how I use MetaDefender on my devices in that it has been installed by the administrator on my VMs which are being listed on my public cloud.

I don't have anything specific to add about how I use MetaDefender in my setup, as it is protecting my whole VMs, so not any particular file.

The best features MetaDefender offers, in my opinion, are that it adapts the policies on the go, and that is the best feature.

When I say it adapts policies on the go, it has the ability that if there is a new policy or the new configuration that has come up without any downtime, it just adjusts it and reiterates to all of the users and all of the devices. MetaDefender has positively impacted my organization as it has reduced time for the users.

MetaDefender reduces time for users in their working, as it does not occupy the RAM usage of their devices plus it does not take time for the downtime or shutting down or the rebooting of the devices.

I have not seen any areas where I can suggest improvements for MetaDefender, so probably it is good enough. I would rate it an eight because its interface can be improved and it can improve their integrations as well, so there is room for improvement.

I have been working in my current field for four and a half years. I have been using MetaDefender for the past six months.

MetaDefender is stable.

MetaDefender's scalability is pretty much scalable.

The customer support is good.

I previously used a different solution, Palo Alto, which I switched from because it was very expensive.

I have seen a return on investment as fewer employees are needed in terms of implementation.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that it is good and at par with other competitors.

Before choosing MetaDefender, I evaluated other options, including Palo Alto and Check Point, as many were evaluated.

My impression of the detection rates provided by MetaScan Multi-scanning is that it is good and pretty accurate. I would assess the effectiveness of Deep CDR in reconstructing files safely and without signatures as they are pretty much effective, and it is really useful for the administrator.

My thoughts on the file-based vulnerability assessment feature in identifying vulnerabilities before deployment are that it is good, and it is a very good feature. I use adaptive sandbox analysis, and its impact on analyzing suspicious files is very great because it detects pretty much early.

I am using the enhanced reporting and audit visibility features, and they have helped meet our audit requirements as it has given us a great requirement study and plus it has also helped in ISO audit requirement as well. I would assess the effectiveness of the solution in blocking or sanitizing content based on policy as good and pretty much effective.

My advice to others looking into using MetaDefender is that if you are looking ahead at a solution which can be implemented quickly and at a lesser cost, go ahead with it. I would rate this product an eight overall.

The main use case for MetaDefender in the project with B****** is to ensure that files are scanned before sending them to the server, where I created a Java-based service that checks for viruses.

In the project with B******, my main use case for MetaDefender is to scan files that use Excel uploads and basic file uploads to prevent any virus infections, so I send the file bytes to MetaDefender APIs and check for viruses.

I do not know much about Deep CDR, as my integration is mostly for scanning viruses, and we just block files that are corrupted or harmful without reconstructing them.

MetaDefender has positively impacted B****** organization, as their security has increased significantly by scanning all the files in their environment before sending them to the servers.

I cannot share any specific outcomes or benefits that B****** has seen, as that is an internal organization matter.

In my experience, the best feature that MetaDefender offers is its perfect documentation, which is critical for API integrations to ensure files are not corrupted or infected with viruses.

I would add that for the dashboard, while I have used it, I am more fascinated about the API. It is good that we can manage users from one console, and I can see the history of uploads and whether the files are corrupted or not.

I think the detection rates provided by MetaDefender through multi-scanning are good, as it stops almost all of the virus files I have uploaded.

MetaDefender effectively blocks the harmful content based on our policies, as this is working perfectly fine for me, though I cannot share specific policies.

In my opinion, MetaDefender could improve its async version of their APIs, as the documentation is not that good for the async APIs and can be a bit complex to navigate for integrations.

Regarding needed improvements for MetaDefender, I think the dashboard could benefit from features that allow tracking IPs from where files are coming, which would enable blocking potential attackers.

I reported this issue, and while it is not directly MetaDefender's fault, it highlights a potential area where they could prevent misconfigurations.

I have been using MetaDefender for a project with an Indian client named B******, which is a big client, and they have requested us to integrate MetaDefender with their current flow.

I think MetaDefender works as expected without major issues, and I faced one, but it was due to the integration provider, OPSWAT.

There was an incident regarding the sending of hardcoded API keys, which caused me to receive unauthorized errors due to the overriding API key issue from OPSWAT.

In my experience, MetaDefender has been stable, as I have not noticed any downtime while my application uses it 24/7.

I do have concerns about scanning larger file sizes, like 400 MB, since we have set a maximum limit of 65 MB, and I would be worried if we were to increase this limit.

I have not had to reach out to MetaDefender for customer support.

I did not use a different solution before MetaDefender, as there was no prior solution.

I think my use case with MetaDefender fits into my workflow well, as it is quite easy to integrate, thanks to the thorough documentation, and we took about two or three days to integrate all of MetaDefender's APIs.

I have not seen a return on investment regarding time or money, but the implementation of MetaDefender provides an essential security layer that blocks potential threats.

Regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing, I cannot provide specifics since it falls under B****** and OPSWAT's management, but from my perspective, the per API hit cost is a factor.

Before choosing MetaDefender, I did not evaluate other options, as it was a decision made by the higher management, and my role was to integrate it.

I would rate MetaDefender around seven to eight because I have used their file scan feature, though I have not fully explored all their capabilities. I would give it a seven or eight because I have not used all the functionalities provided, and I deduct a point for the async API documentation which could be better.

Regarding MetaDefender's AI capabilities, I believe they manage governance and security policies quite well, especially since B***** is a large and reputable firm.

MetaDefender is deployed on-premises in the organization, and there is also a trial version available on the cloud, but we are currently only using on-premises.

My advice to others looking into using MetaDefender is to read the documentation first before implementing anything. I would rate MetaDefender an eight out of ten overall.

The use cases for MetaDefender involve checking an endpoint, such as a laptop or USB, to ensure that they are safe, clean, and meet security policy before they connect to the network. I can use it for malware and unknown devices' security status.

The best feature of MetaDefender is that it can isolate USB devices from the connected network, blocks malware and unsafe files, and ensures all endpoints follow security policy, so that my organization remains safe and reduces the risk of these threats.

I find MetaDefender effective when it comes to blocking or sanitizing content based on the policies in place because it removes hidden threats and scans devices and endpoints, protecting the environment against unknown and advanced attacks.

The integration of Multi-Scanning and Content Disarm and Reconstruction affects my data security operations positively as it is easy to integrate into my environment.

I find the multi-scanning mechanism and content disarm and reconstruction features beneficial for data security, as MetaDefender's endpoint creates a secure layer to protect my organization from threats and attacks.

The main benefits that MetaDefender brings include isolating USB devices from attacks, removing hidden threats such as malware and malicious attacks, and protecting against unknown and advanced attacks.

My impression of the detection rates provided by MetaScan Multi-Scanning is that they are good, as the scanning of MetaDefender removes hidden threats, detects known issues, and protects devices from unknown malware and attacks.

I assess the effectiveness of Deep CDR in reconstructing files safely without signatures. CDR used in MetaDefender effectively removes dangerous and unsafe attacks by taking a file, removing risky parts, and delivering a clean version to the user, as it removes scripts, hidden links, and malicious components.

I use Adaptive Sandbox Analysis and a sandbox to detect advanced threats, as it receives files, runs them in a VM environment, and discovers the behavior of these files, allowing safe files to return while blocking any that behave poorly.

I find that the features of MetaDefender are strong, and its work is effective for scanning and securing the environment from malware and operates well.

I am not using the expanded file type and archive coverage feature because I was unaware of it.

I am not using the enhanced reporting and audit visibility features, and I am unsure about them.

Regarding the reporting, analytics, and audit visibility, I cannot provide a comprehensive answer. I do not know if the audit requirements help me with deep enhanced reporting and audit visibility in MetaDefender.

I have not noticed any improvements in workflow automation with recent enhancements to policy orchestration and engine parallelization.

What I would like to see improved in MetaDefender includes reducing the high cost of the license, as the pricing is very high.

Functionality-wise, I find installation and setup very difficult, and I needed support to help me understand the setup of MetaDefender. The process requires good planning and understanding of the environment to configure it, as the integration with policies takes more time to build and requires more experience.

I have been using MetaDefender for one year.

When it comes to stability, I find it stable as it maintains good external stability with good availability and no major issues. The setup is difficult, but generally, the product stability is good.

I find it scalable, as more users can work smoothly without any crashing or slowing down.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as good, as they respond in a timely manner.

Before MetaDefender, I used EDR, which is the product that I used before switching to MetaDefender.

The deployment process was difficult; I needed a vendor to help me because the setup of MetaDefender is complex.

SIS helped me to deploy MetaDefender.

I believe it is worth the money, as it brings time-saving, cost-saving, and efficiency improvements, especially in large environments. However, in smaller environments, it incurs high costs. Overall, it is good because it has many features for scanning and cleaning the environment from malware and saves time.

I do not find it cost-effective, as the costing is high.

I decided to switch to MetaDefender because Kaspersky could only detect malware but not take action, whereas MetaDefender detects and prevents threats simultaneously.

I chose MetaDefender because it is capable of adding multi-layered security that prevents threat detection and removes unknown threats, working without signature-based detection, which is beneficial.

I recommend MetaDefender to others because it is effective, has high stability, and is beneficial for environments. I have rated this review a ten out of ten.

My main use case for MetaDefender is for security purposes, as we are a cybersecurity team, and currently we are using it for purposes such as antivirus scanning and other security measures.

In my day-to-day work, we are working with a company called Opswat, and we have devices, so to keep everything clean and clear, we are using MetaDefender as an antivirus firewall. We are inserting this MetaDefender chip for scanning purposes and using it as a firewall as well, but I do not have much knowledge about it because I am in a non-technical role right now.

In terms of using MetaDefender, we are utilizing it for threat detection, multi-scanning, and enterprise security.

MetaDefender has impacted my organization positively by adding an extra layer of security to our file and content handling process, and through its CDR, it ensures that files are sanitized before they reach our environment, which has improved our security posture.

I have noticed that the confidence and security of file processing have improved, with multi-engine scanning providing threat detection, and the security checks help us identify malicious files before they enter our environment, although I have not yet observed a specific, quantified business impact.

In my experience, MetaDefender offers a Deep CDR, and other major strengths include multi-scanning, Tri-tech AI, Adaptive Sandbox, Proactive DLP, and file vulnerability assessment.

Out of those features, I find myself relying on Deep CDR the most because it is one of MetaDefender's key differentiators; it does not depend only on detecting known malware but sanitizes and reconstructs files to prevent potentially malicious content, including zero-day threats, from reaching the environment.

Regarding MetaDefender's AI features, I think it handles data responsibly and keeps things secure by providing protection in multiple layers through malware scanning, threat detection, and content sanitization, which helps organizations manage security risks while maintaining a good balance between security, control, and compliance.

I find MetaDefender's AI capabilities to be reliable and useful as an additional layer of threat detection, with results that have been generally consistent and provide useful insights when analyzing files, though I have not used the AI capabilities long enough to independently measure accuracy.

My impression of the detection rates from MetaDefender's Metascan Multi-scanning has been positive; using multiple scanning engines provides broader coverage and greater confidence that potential threats will not be missed, and while I have not independently measured the detection rate, the results I have seen are consistent and useful for identifying potential malicious files.

I assess Deep CDR as highly effective in reconstructing files safely and without signatures because it focuses on safely reconstructing files rather than relying only on traditional malware signatures, which is particularly valuable for handling unknown or potentially zero-day threats while keeping reconstructed files usable.

I think the file-based vulnerability assessment feature is valuable because it helps identify potential vulnerabilities before files or applications are deployed, providing an additional preventive security layer that helps organizations address risk earlier rather than discovering them post-deployment.

We are using the reporting and audit visibility features to gain better visibility into scanning activities and results, which help provide a clearer record of what has been scanned and the outcomes, aiding in tracking and audit purposes from an operational perspective.

One area where MetaDefender could improve is by making the user experience more intuitive, especially for new users, with clear guidance, simpler navigation, and a more detailed explanation of scan results and outcomes, which would enhance the effectiveness for users, while better onboarding and learning resources would help users get familiar with the different features more quickly.

The usability and onboarding are my main concerns, as I do not have much overview on the technical aspects.

I have been using MetaDefender for two to three months.

MetaDefender offers strong security capabilities and multiple layers of threat detection, but since I am still relatively new to this platform, I would explore more of its features before giving it a higher rating. Even though MetaDefender provides a strong, multilayered security and is quite useful and comprehensive, the user experience on onboarding and the clarity of scan results could be simpler, especially for new users.

My advice to organizations looking into using MetaDefender is to seek an additional layer of security around file and content handling, as it is a great choice with multi-engine scanning, CDR, and vulnerability assessment capabilities providing good overall coverage. It is important to clearly understand your organization's security requirements and take time to explore the different features and integrations to get the most value from the platform.

I would rate MetaDefender as an eight out of ten.

The major use cases of MetaDefender in my work environment involve preventing malware updates, data breaches, and compliance violations through scanning files for malware, vulnerabilities, and sensitive data at the network perimeter.

The best features of MetaDefender include its ability to detect malware and vulnerabilities, which I also use at server levels, including production and testing servers, helping me identify and address vulnerabilities by applying patch updates.

When sanitizing files based on policies, MetaDefender processes and sanitizes files to remove hidden content, including embedded objects and scripts while preserving the visible content.

I use MetaDefender Archive Extractor, which supports over 30 archive file types, improving detection and preventing archive bombs, allowing administrators to perform archive handling once for each file type.

I would like to see improvements in the tool's automation capabilities. It would be beneficial if it could automatically create tickets and notify responsible teams about any identified vulnerabilities rather than relying on a manual process.

I want to see enhancements allowing for automatic ticket creation using APIs to streamline the workflow and assign tickets to respective teams.

I have been using MetaDefender for the last two years on my official laptop.

I do not have any stability issues with MetaDefender.

MetaDefender is scalable; it allows for automation in scaling resources as needed during peak times.

I would rate technical support as a nine out of ten.

I have evaluated other options available in the market, such as Microsoft and McAfee, but found MetaDefender to be distinct.

I decided to go with MetaDefender due to its architectural compatibility with the client's budget requirements, as its scanning and vulnerability detection capabilities are better than other tools.

For me, onboarding MetaDefender was not too difficult, being balanced between straightforward and complex.

I have seen measurable benefits, as MetaDefender saves time, preventing the need for manual processes associated with other tools.

The detection rates from MetaScan multi-scanning are managed mainly by other teams in alignment with our organization policy, where they can achieve detection rates of 81-87% with four engines or 95% with sixteen engines, and the comparison with Microsoft Defender often yields similar results.

I do not have an opinion on the effectiveness of Deep CDR in file reconstruction.

We have a process in place for identifying vulnerabilities before deployment where team members raise tickets on the ServiceNow portal for the respective teams to address.

I do not use Adaptive Sandbox analysis, as that is managed by another team.

I do not notice improvements in workflow automation as recent enhancements are managed by other teams; I am focused on using the tool to identify vulnerabilities.

I do not have an assessment of how multi-scanning and content disarm and reconstruction affect our data security operations.

I recommend implementing MetaDefender for its impressive features that maintain the health of the system. My overall review rating for MetaDefender is nine out of ten.

Our use case is for threat protection.

I appreciate the unique features of MetaDefender since it uses multiple scanning in a single engine. The scanning capability, which combines different antivirus and scanning engines integrated into a single engine by OPSWAT, is particularly valuable.

The integration of multi-scanning and Content Disarm and Reconstruction is truly helpful because we can utilize it in other products such as email integration with ICAP capability, and we are also using it in web scanning. The integration is flexible and perfect for our needs.

We are not yet using the expanded file type and archive coverage feature.

Enhanced reporting and audit capabilities are not fully utilized. We use only the simple reporting features, such as viewing viruses that were scanned and found, and how they were removed and disinfected.

At this time, I cannot determine specific areas where MetaDefender should improve because it is already nearly perfect.

We have been using this solution for two years.

I can rate the stability at 10.

One hundred users use the solution.

The technical support can be rated at 9.5 from one to 10, with 10 being the best.

Comparing MetaDefender with other antivirus vendors, it is not comparable because of the unique features of using multiple scanning, which I cannot see in other products.

The engine requires constant updates for analysis purposes, which is why we need to maintain it regularly.

The detection rate of MetaDefender is 99.99 percent. It is truly effective because although we are not relying on signatures for scanning, we rely on the behavior of threats, and they are perfectly removed or we are perfectly protected from that scanning. Even though it is not signature-based and scans based on threat behavior, that approach is effective.

We are using adaptive sandbox analysis. Using sandbox analysis helps describe the impact on analyzing any suspicious files and extends the capabilities for how to disinfect or detect threats. It helps us detect zero-day attack threats, so we are protected from that.

The effectiveness of the solution in blocking or sanitizing any content based on our policies is excellent.

I would recommend this product to other users. It should be integrated with AI for enhancement. I would rate this review at 10.

My main use case for MetaDefender is for our client's environment, which is using MetaDefender for their OT security or for their email side. All clients use MetaDefender, and it is especially great for Content Disarm and Reconstruction, which they want to leverage.

For example, one of our clients is using MetaDefender for their email gateway site as their mail gateways, scanning emails. Generally, they use MetaDefender's Content Disarm and Reconstruction property for that email scanning.

None of my customers are using the reporting and audit visibility features on MetaDefender platform.

Integrating multi-scanning and Content Disarm and Reconstruction positively affects my clients' data security operations, prioritizing security over potential delays experienced by end users.

The best features MetaDefender offers include its Content Disarm and Reconstruction, which is a key feature chosen by our clients because many other products claim to provide that functionality, but generally, they cannot do it as cleanly. Through Proof of Concept sessions with our clients and the OPSWAT team, they see that MetaDefender's Content Disarm and Reconstruction is strong, usable, and valuable for our customers, making them want to work with OPSWAT specifically for this feature.

For example, one of our customers was not using any Content Disarm and Reconstruction technology but was receiving emails containing PDF documents or XLSX documents, some with malicious content. MetaDefender's technology worked effectively, disarming and reconstructing PDFs to deliver clean copies to their users, while allowing their analysts to see the malicious code.

MetaDefender has positively impacted my clients' organizations by saving time for their SOC teams who were previously receiving false positives and unnecessary alarms from other products, allowing them to focus on analyzing real threats, which has led to fewer incidents.

For one of my clients, a major bank in Turkey, they reported saving approximately 30 percent of their SOC time on analyzing emails since implementing MetaDefender.

MetaScan multi-scanning feature is excellent because it provides multiple vendors for scanning. If one vendor fails, the others remain operational, ensuring continued protection.

Assessing the effectiveness of Deep Content Disarm and Reconstruction in reconstructing files safely and without signatures reveals it to be effective, as clients receive identical documents without changes other than the removal of malicious code.

MetaDefender's file-based vulnerability assessment analyzes binaries and installers for known vulnerabilities before they enter a network, providing a proactive defense that is highly valuable for our customers.

While MetaDefender's mail gateway already gives fewer false positives, there is still room for improvement in reducing those even further.

Additionally, MetaDefender could benefit from a better graphical user interface for administrators, making it more usable, although this is not an urgent need but an area for potential improvement.

I have been using MetaDefender for three years.

It was a fresh sell to our customers for MetaDefender, and I evaluated other options before choosing MetaDefender.

I have not seen a direct return on investment, but clients have noted that the product saves time and may reduce the need for fewer employees since the SOC team focuses on critical incidents as MetaDefender handles current analyses efficiently.

Pricing, setup costs, and licensing are handled by my sales team, but feedback indicates that our pricing is better than other vendor solutions.

I can specify that my clients considered other options before choosing MetaDefender.

I do not have anything else to add about how my clients use MetaDefender. My review rating for MetaDefender is ten out of ten.

Our use case is pretty wide. We wanted to scan every file uploaded by our customers to our application. For example, our customers upload ID data files to the application, and our application contacts the Core server via API and scans the files. We have about 15 external-facing applications where a customer or agent can upload a data file.

We have also integrated some of our network devices with the ICAP server for the same purposes.

And we are scanning some files on our file shares.

We sleep well now because we are assured that the files that are coming into our organization are scanned.

I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done.

Also, we don't have many false positives. When a file really is malicious, it is blocked. There is a really low false-positive ratio.

It just works. We don't use it for extreme use cases, and we didn't want to make extreme modifications because it works. We like that we don't need to put too much effort into operating the server. We just installed it, did a little bit of configuration and customization, and it just works.

The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support.

We have been using the OPSWAT Core and ICAP servers for about two years.

I haven't experienced any instability with MetaDefender. We are running it in high availability. We have two MetaDefender Cores, each one in a different data center, and there is a load balancer. We set it up with high availability in mind. We haven't experienced any problems. The stability is a 10 out of 10.

I believe it is scalable, but I don't know how much it can be scaled. I would rate this aspect a nine out of 10 because I'm not sure. My rating is based on what I have read in the documentation.

We are planning to integrate this solution to scan files that are not only uploaded by customers, but also by third-party companies we are working with.

The support is good, really responsive. They usually respond within two hours or less, and we fix issues in about two days.

There is a guy there named Vlad. He is a great technician who has helped me many times when I had trouble with licenses or questions on how to do something differently. The support is great.

Positive

We were using ESET. It was like a homemade solution from five or 10 years ago and really hard to operate.

The implementation was straightforward. MetaDefender is quite easy to use. Installing it is very simple. The basic concepts are easy to understand.

We spent about two weeks implementing and configuring this. We wrote custom libraries with some scripts, and that's all. And it has been running for two years so far. We enabled automatic updates and it just works.

We have it deployed fully on-prem because we have sensitive data. We have it in two separate data centers. One is in Warsaw and the second is in Krakow.

There is no maintenance involved.

I deployed it with a member of my platform team and a network administrator.

We don't treat this like an investment that will return something.

We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price.

We bought three ICAP servers and three MetaDefender cores for three years, and that cost about 600,000 PLN (about $145,000). Support is included in the price, and the support is great. We didn't need any custom modifications or deployments.

It's not that MetaDefender has some super-unique features, because we also tested some other products. But its simplicity was the main factor in our choice of OPSWAT.

I would do a proof of concept because we are talking about cybersecurity. We ran tests for free for about three months. After our testing we were happy with the results.