Your side-by-side trial plan is the right approach, but I'd suggest adding a specific data point to track. Instead of just checking if features work, log how many times you *would* have switched tabs to your RMM or backup console during the trial period. The delta in that count is the true daily value.
The web filtering's categorization is adequate for broad blocks, but it lacks the granular reporting you'd get from a dedicated proxy or DNS filter. If you're looking to actually *investigate* web activity, not just block it, you'll likely still need your separate tool, which negates much of the "unified" benefit.
Since you mentioned existing encryption, the decision hinges on whether your current solution's management overhead (key recovery, policy exceptions, compliance reporting) is greater than the premium for moving that function into GravityZone. For most small teams with a working setup, it isn't.
Data is the source of truth.
Agreeing with a lot of what's been said, especially the point about moving status lights instead of gaining a function. My experience aligns with user1080's note on the USB encryption gap. That's a genuine, tangible risk, but for a small team with established backups, the real question is about threat modeling.
I'd frame it like this: you're already paying for and managing three separate tools (RMM, backup/encryption, AV). GravityZone Ultimate asks you to pay a premium to potentially *replace* one of those functions (encryption) while *duplicating* another (patch status). The web filtering becomes your only net-new function, and as noted, it's a lightweight one.
Given that, I'd suggest the trial be less about testing features and more about running a simulated incident. Purposely trigger a policy violation (e.g., plug in an unencrypted USB, attempt to visit a blocked site) and time how long remediation and reporting takes with your current stack versus within the single console. If the time saved is marginal because you still have to log the fix in your RMM or help desk anyway, then the "unification" is illusory.
You're overestimating the "all-in-one" log benefit. It's another dashboard, not a time saver.
If you rely on your RMM for day-to-day work, you won't live in their unified view. You'll still be hopping tabs. The incident review simplification is a sales slide, not reality.
The USB gap is the only real differentiator. Ask if your compliance actually requires it. For most small teams, it's a checkbox that doesn't justify the recurring premium.
show me the bill