Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity vs Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 2, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

BlackBerry Cylance Cybersec...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
24th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.6
Number of Reviews
44
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Cybereason Endpoint Detecti...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
40th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (30th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity is 1.3%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is 0.9%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity1.3%
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response0.9%
Other97.8%
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

Sooraj Makkancherrry - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Operations Manager at Philips
Doesn't have daily updates, which is important for healthcare IT
I face challenges with the exclusion policy - it still scans folders we told it not to, causing issues. When we contact support, they tell us to update the latest agent, but we can't do that immediately due to medical device protocols and validation testing. I wish support would try to understand our issues better instead of giving this standard response. The machine learning feature they use often tells us to upgrade the agent or add things to the exclusion list, which isn't unacceptable. It's a very good and new technology as a tool and antivirus. But sometimes, it doesn't work properly with our medical devices and products, quarantining files it shouldn't even after we add them to exclusions. This is tricky for us.
Ivan Burke - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Research Development and Innovation at CSIR
Offers useful threat hunting and response capabilities but struggles to justify cost for smaller deployments
I mostly work with incident response, so I work with a bunch of them interchangeably, but mostly with the EDR components; I also get involved with some of the XDR components, especially for the cloud. Regarding analysis features, such as deep behavioral detection, I do use it sometimes; I usually don't use the automated version of it, as I prefer threat hunting directly, depending on if the season is available. I know some of them have pretty good analytics engines, but I tend to do the threat hunting on my own. I manage incident response for a bunch of companies, so some of them have Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response integrated into Sentinel, some into Fortinet, and others into various tools. When considering cost-effectiveness, their pricing structure works such that if you're a large organization with more than a thousand endpoints to deploy to, then Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is worthwhile. But for anything less than 300, it's too expensive; obviously, the more you buy, the better the price, making it cheaper for you. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response best fits enterprise-level businesses such as huge corporations; however, we are in the process of removing it from many of our endpoint clients because it's not really showing enough value for them at the moment. We're trying to see how we can improve it with some of our clients, but at the moment, it's struggling compared to other EDR solutions that we have deployed. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response a six.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"A user can continue to add endpoints and the solution will continue to perform well."
"It secures different entry points into the network."
"The solution is very quick at easily changing the levels of protection for each computer and the server."
"Does malware analysis. Blocks WannaCry and other attacks that have come out."
"In most cases, the solution's ability to detect in the MITRE framework, and its ability to be able to detect attacks in any one of seven or eight different areas of the life cycle of an attack is very useful."
"Blackberry Protect offers endpoint protection. It's easy to deploy. It's scalable and stable."
"It does a good job of protecting us."
"It is a good endpoint solution. It is very easy to manage and detect the threat immediately. It will take the necessary actions."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"For me, the technical support is good."
"The dashboard is very good and you can consider it as an interactive UI."
"The most valuable feature is the capability of the command used by the machine so that we see the kind of performance that is running."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"What I like most about Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is the support because the support is good. The solution is also easy to use, and it has a dashboard. Everything is good, and there's no problem with it."
"The initial setup process is straightforward."
"Their EDR solution, the ability to mitigate issues through their command line, is probably the best feature that we've had. We use that all the time. It's very useful for doing investigations."
 

Cons

"The price for this EPP platform is expensive and could be improved."
"I would like to see a better UI in terms of sifting through more specific data and providing analytics. A little bit more would be nice."
"The stability could be improved."
"Enhancing the product's detection rates and streamlining the user interface for easier management in daily operations would be beneficial improvements."
"Having worked with SentinelOne, Cylance is good, however, it probably needs to add a feature similar to SentinelOne's rollback functionality. With this feature, if you get infected, with a click, you can go back to the pre-infection state. If Cylance could add this functionality to their offering as well, that would be ideal."
"The security scripting needs improvement. It needs deeper security for scripting."
"The management console needs a little maturity in how it presents data and allows the administrator to drill down or search across systems."
"​Work on the math model. We are catching a lot of false positives, which gets to be a pain at the start of a deployment."
"Its Microsoft PowerShell protections still need some compatibility improvements. We have run across just a few. It is compatible with 90% of what we have in our network, but there is that 10% that we are still struggling with as far as compatibility with the type of PowerShell scripts needed to run our day-to-day business."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"The product's reporting isn't great."
"I feel that the product lacks reporting features and needs improvement."
"While the product is very good, there are still some areas for improvement. The initial triage area could be a bit simpler. They get into the weeds real fast; it gets very detailed very fast. I am still looking for an easier triage layer on top with the ability to dig deeper."
"What needs to improve in Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and what I'd like to see in its next release is a centralized dashboard that allows you to view what is there, similar to what's on Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager: a beautiful display and reporting. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response has to start with the compliance, the homepage, etc. Everything should be there and should be customizable. The options should be there. The tool is very good currently, but visibility for IT administrators is lacking and needs to be worked on."
"Cybereason does not have sandbox functionality."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's not so heavily priced; rather, it's average and decent."
"We would just add more if there are new users, but right now you just need one license for per user."
"The product cost is about $5, per user, per month."
"We pay our license on a yearly basis and have just renewed for two years."
"Our licensing cost for the solution is around $4,000 for six months. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The price is reasonable for us at the moment. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten."
"The initial end-point cost may seem a little high (~$55/device/year) but when you look at the total peace of mind that the solution provides, with no reboots for updates, and negligible performance impact, it is well worth it."
"I think that the price we are paying is good for what it is."
"We considered a few other solutions. Some were ridiculously overpriced, while others didn't have solutions for Mac endpoints. That was a deal-breaker because most of our organization is on Mac. It came down to two vendors: Cybereason and another. They had similar pitches and almost identical approaches, but in the end, Cybereason gave us the best value for our money."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing an eight."
"I had to go through a third-party to purchase it, which I wasn't really pleased about."
"This product is somewhat expensive and should be cheaper."
"In terms of cost, this is a good choice for our needs."
"In terms of pricing, it's a good solution."
"Though it is not the cheapest solution but it fits our budget. We pay an annual licensing fee."
"The pricing is manageable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
881,455 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business33
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise13
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Blackberry Protect?
It is a good endpoint solution. It is very easy to manage and detect the threat immediately. It will take the necessary actions.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Blackberry Protect?
The price is reasonable for us at the moment. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.
What needs improvement with Blackberry Protect?
I face challenges with the exclusion policy - it still scans folders we told it not to, causing issues. When we contact support, they tell us to update the latest agent, but we can't do that immedi...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response?
Comparison with other products showed it be cheaper than some larger competitors. Set up cost for us were cheaper as we already had users experienced with the product in other business units. Initi...
What is your primary use case for Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response?
My main use case for Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is mostly for incident response.
 

Also Known As

Blackberry Protect
Cybereason EDR, Cybereason Deep Detect & Respond
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Panasonic, Noble Energy, Apria Healthcare Group Inc., Charles River Laboratories, Rovi Corporation, Toyota, Kiewit
Lockheed Martin, Spark Capital, DocuSign, Softbank Capital
Find out what your peers are saying about BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity vs. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,455 professionals have used our research since 2012.