EDR and antivirus are now completely different classes of solutions. Antivirus focuses mainly on detecting known malicious files and typically ends its operation by removing them, without context or analysis of the root cause of the incident. EDR collects full endpoint telemetry, analyzes system behavior, detects unknown threats, and enables effective response, post-breach investigation, and threat hunting.

Although some AV vendors offer products with “EDR” in the name, only full-fledged EDR platforms provide real visibility and analytics. For smaller organizations, alternatives may include Endpoint Protection or an MDR/SOC service, which enables the use of EDR without building in-house capabilities. In a modern security architecture, traditional antivirus is a thing of the past, and the choice of technology should depend on organizational scale, risk, and available resources.

EDR and antivirus: then and now

To understand the difference between an EDR system and antivirus software, it is worth looking at the origins of both solutions.

Initially, EDR systems were used differently than they are today, and a more accurate expansion of the acronym at the time was Event Data Recorder. Early EDRs functioned as telemetry collectors. Their task was to record every event occurring in the operating system: metadata for each file creation, network connection, and application execution. All of this data was collected to verify what the antivirus detected—meaning EDR and AV (Anti Virus) systems complemented each other.

Over time, EDR systems were enhanced with reactive capabilities, which—combined with massive amounts of analytical data—resulted in greater attack detection effectiveness than traditional antivirus solutions. While AV only inspected files, enhanced EDRs were able to analyze behavior, remaining resilient to file modifications and new threats not covered by signatures.

Modern EDR systems—Endpoint Detection and Response—collect extensive telemetry, detect threats, and respond to them.

Antivirus software has also evolved over the years, with many vendors offering more advanced variants enriched with analysis and incident response capabilities. However, equating EDR with AV would still be misleading. Why? This article explains.

EDR vs. antivirus

Today, every EDR includes antivirus functionality, but no antivirus offers analytics as advanced as EDR.

First, traditional AV software operates by scanning each file and comparing it against a predefined database of malicious files. EDR also does this—but differently. It breaks each file down using machine learning, compares extracted artifacts with historical data, and determines whether the file is malicious. Unlike classic antivirus, EDR has no problem detecting modified or completely unknown files.

Second, antivirus operation typically ends when a malicious file is detected and blocked or an alert is generated. The response is limited to removing the file, without the ability to roll back changes it introduced. AV provides no insight into the file—where it came from, what actions it performed, what threat it posed to the organization, or whether it spread to other devices.

EDR provides all of this and more. Through a centralized console, we gain access to information that allows us to reconstruct the entire event timeline—whether the incident was caused by an insider who brought malware on a USB drive, whether it entered via email, or whether an employee clicked a malicious advertisement. We have a complete dataset enabling a full investigation of the detected threat.

Not all EDRs are equal

The high effectiveness of EDRs has contributed to their growing popularity. However, change is gradual, and the market still shows a strong dominance of traditional antivirus solutions. To keep up, AV vendors now offer products with “EDR” in the name. Popular examples include ESET and Bitdefender, which do offer analytical features in selected licensing tiers.

Looking more closely at ESET—it provides products across several licensing levels, with the highest tiers (based on a different agent) offering EDR functionality. However, the analytical data available in these plans is limited, as only telemetry associated with detected scenarios is collected. As a result, visibility is restricted to generated alerts.

By comparison, EDRs from leading vendors such as SentinelOne, Microsoft, and Palo Alto Networks collect all telemetry data regardless of detection, enabling post-incident analysis, threat hunting, and detection engineering.

That said, the level of analytics provided by ESET’s top licensing tiers may be sufficient for many organizations—especially when combined with additional features such as patch management and other IT administration tools. Reluctance to abandon a comprehensive solution offering useful functionality and a reasonable security level is understandable.

Deployment process: EDR vs. antivirus

Deploying both systems usually looks very similar and presents comparable challenges. Installation is identical in both cases and involves distributing agents across organizational assets. As with any other software, this can be done using Active Directory-based remote deployment mechanisms or dedicated tools.

Both EDR and advanced AV solutions—which operate at a low system level—may cause issues with certain applications or increased resource consumption. With EDR, these problems are easier to resolve thanks to centralized telemetry and the ability to quickly identify issues and eliminate them using extensive exception handling. With antivirus, teams often operate blindly due to the lack of detailed telemetry.

Endpoint Protection – an alternative for small businesses

When an organization needs effective endpoint protection but lacks the resources to process analytical data generated by EDR, it should consider Endpoint Protection solutions.

These represent a compromise between antivirus and full EDR, typically offering detection mechanisms identical to the vendor’s EDR solution but without telemetry collection. Endpoint Protection solutions are often competitively priced compared to antivirus products while providing more effective detection based on machine learning and behavioral analysis rather than signatures. They are available from all leading EDR vendors, including SentinelOne, Palo Alto Networks, Cybereason, Microsoft, and CrowdStrike.

MDR service

Organizations that lack the resources to fully leverage EDR capabilities but want to improve their security posture should consider MDR (Managed Detection and Response) services, delivered by external SOC (Security Operations Center) teams.

Key benefits of SOC services include:

1. A significant increase in security while maintaining relatively low costs;
2. 24/7 availability of specialized analysts who continuously develop their skills;
3. Access to top-tier EDR solutions at prices previously available only to large enterprise organizations;
4. Building organizational resilience based on multiple sources—not only security alerts, but also CTI tools and incident analysis in a dedicated lab environment.

As the SOC360 team, we provide services to organizations with both dozens and tens of thousands of endpoints. Regardless of size, every client receives the same service level, the same monitoring approach, and the same level of security.

Antivirus is the past

When asked which system is better—EDR or antivirus—the answer is clear. EDR, with its advanced anomaly detection and incident response mechanisms, post-incident analysis, and ability to create new detection rules based on extensive telemetry, is objectively more effective. It is no coincidence that EDR is considered one of the foundational elements of an effective security architecture.

There are situations where alternative solutions are justified, which is why each case should be analyzed individually. If you are wondering which technology best fits your organization, contact us. We will help you find a solution that fully meets your needs.