Hi team, First of all, I really appreciate the direction Huntress is taking with ESPM. The concept of Endpoint Security Posture Management fits perfectly with the needs we see daily as an MSP. However, after reviewing the Early Access requirements, I have a concern regarding the dependency on Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (Plan 2) or similar to enable vulnerability visibility. From a technical perspective, I understand the decision. Leveraging Microsoft’s vulnerability engine provides deep visibility and avoids reinventing a complex system. That said, from a commercial and operational standpoint, this creates a significant challenge for MSPs and our clients. Most of our customers are running Microsoft 365 Business Standard, which does not include Defender for Endpoint P2 or similar. This means that in order to access vulnerability management, they would need to: Upgrade to higher-tier Microsoft licenses (E5 or equivalent), or add standalone Defender for Endpoint P2 licenses or Bussines Premium( I dont know if it's included, Microsoft licensing can be difficult to navigate) In addition to already paying for Huntress (EDR + SIEM + ESPM) This results in multiple overlapping subscriptions, which is something many clients are actively trying to avoid. It increases complexity, cost, and friction in sales conversations. Am I understanding this correctly, or am I missing something? One of Huntress’ biggest strengths has always been simplicity and delivering strong security outcomes without requiring a complex or expensive stack. This dependency risks diluting that value proposition. From our perspective, it would be extremely valuable if Huntress could consider developing a native, lightweight vulnerability scanning capability within ESPM, even if more basic, or offering a hybrid approach: Built-in vulnerability visibility for standard use cases Optional advanced integration with Microsoft Defender for deeper insights This would allow MSPs to deliver vulnerability management to a much broader client base without forcing additional licensing layers. We are very excited about ESPM and see strong potential, but reducing dependency on external licensing would significantly improve adoption and overall value. Thanks for considering this feedback.
