We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Immediately we can pick up the computers in the network if any malicious operation that is triggered."
"It gives all the information in a clear response."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"The dashboard is very good and you can consider it as an interactive UI."
"Cybereason absolutely enables us to mitigate and isolate on the fly. Our managed detection response telemetry has dropped dramatically since we began using it. It's very top-of-mind. We were running some tabletop exercises and none of the detections were getting triggered by the managed security services provider. So we needed to find a solution that would trigger high-fidelity alerts. That was Cybereason and it dramatically changed our landscape from the detection and response perspective."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"We didn't have the visibility that we now have. It has increased our visibility by a lot. So, we put a lot more time into really looking at our environment and what is happening throughout our different networks. It has increased our visibility by around fivefold."
"The solution is efficient."
"Defender is stable. The performance is good."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to effectively detect threats. It has the EDR feature, endpoint detection and response, and that is very good."
"The whole bundle of the product, which is similar to other Microsoft products, is valuable. Ten years ago, you had third-party stuff for different things. You had one solution for email archiving and another third-party one for something else. Nowadays, Microsoft Office covers all the stuff that was formerly covered by third-party solutions. It is the same with antivirus. The functionality is just basic. You have the scanning, and then you also have a kind of cloud-based protection and reporting about your environment. With Microsoft Security Center, you have a complete overview of your environment. You know the software inventory, and you have security recommendations. You can not only see that the antivirus is up to date; you can also see where are the vulnerabilities in your system. Microsoft Security Center tells you where you have old, deprecated software and what kind of CVEs are addressed. It's really cool stuff."
"Within its class I think, it has a high and decent detection rate."
"The technical support from Microsoft is very good. We are part of the Microsoft Suite, and from being part of this we have consistent news regarding Microsoft Defender for Endpoint."
"Stable endpoint manager, antivirus, and antimalware, with fast technical support and a straightforward setup."
"I like that Defender is integrated and doesn't have a third-party payload trying to advertise subscription renewal."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a robust platform."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"The support needs improvement."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The network coverage becomes an issue most of the time."
"There can be problems with the EDI."
"The product's reporting isn't great."
"Cybereason does not have sandbox functionality."
"The deployment on individual endpoints is more geared toward larger organizations. It might prove to be a bit too complicated for a smaller organization. You need to know what you're doing when you're deploying the sensor."
"Compared to our previous endpoint, we have a lot more false positives and a lot more duplication of alerts. So we're chasing more alerts."
"The integration with Microsoft solutions and Microsoft capabilities needs to be improved."
"They need to improve their technical support services."
"Where we stand right now, compared to other products that are there in the market, they still have to work on their threat intelligence and the overall maturity of detecting the malware."
"I would like to see improvements made to how it secures activities on web pages."
"There are some areas in the proactive threats that are just overwhelming the SOC, so we've had to turn those off until we can figure out how to filter out the false positives."
"The documentation could be better. When they update their manuals, sometimes they refer to products by their old names, so it is a little confusing. For example, the documentation might still say "Advanced Threat Protection" instead of Defender for Endpoint."
"I would like to see the next generation of the tool improved to work with other operating systems, like Linux."
"Updates are not coming out of preview quickly enough and it is holding back on the development of the product."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint could improve by adding more security features."
"More integration with different platforms is an area for improvement for this product, and should be included in its next release."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 44th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 19 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 182 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response writes "It has helped us become more knowledgeable about our environment and aware of threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Darktrace, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, whereas Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon and Microsoft Intune. See our Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
