We performed a comparison between Code42 Incydr and Digital Guardian based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"There are a couple of things. One of them is that they have what they call Incydr. Their detection and response solution to the insider threat area is called Incydr. That gives visibility to the clients that have widely dispersed employee bases due to work from home, or that had a dispersed workforce predating any of the work from home requirements. Even though they might not be inside the organization physically, they're inside the organization. It allows us to get some visibility into what people are doing, what the context is, and how to control what might be the potential for intellectual property theft or file exposure."
"It required very little ongoing maintenance once setup."
"Security tools: Being able to monitor data going in and coming off our endpoints. Seeing what it is and where it's going is awesome."
"Works in the background and users are able to perform restores."
"Low system overhead, setting retention policies, ease of use"
"t has a very user friendly status bar with common errors and has logs built in to the console so we can review the issues or status of CrashPlan."
"The solution is very stable. Very rarely do we have any issues with it. We don't have to deal with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. We find it to be reliable."
"It had the ability to preseed by sending in a data drive and could restore by sending the user a data drive."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"The feature we call desktop recording is the most valuable aspect of the solution. Not only can we collect data from the user's usage, but we also capture his screenshots when he is trying to steal the data."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"Some of the features that are highly appreciated are its robust data loss prevention capabilities, flexible deployment options, and the ability to monitor data transfer across multiple vectors."
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"It has been scalable."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"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."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"You can't always filter out data that you'd like to."
"Java, please get rid of Java."
"I would like to see more flexibility on privileges, perhaps create another kind of admin for regions. Also, I would like the ability to access logs without having to be on the actual device or a super-admin."
"There doesn't seem to be any feature that is lacking."
"In a couple of instances, we had a little bit of trouble in getting it distributed throughout the organization. We ultimately managed to do it, but they talk about it being a pretty simple process, and it became a little laborious. It would just turn away. The agents were not being distributed. It was just churning and churning and churning. When we were looking for specific categories of data, it was getting bogged down, but that was not even so much Code42, although some of it was their issue."
"Due to recent changes that effectively abandoned an entire segment of their user base, I no longer trust nor can recommend Code42 products."
"What I think could be improved is how I get support."
"I think one we can improve is the compression."
"Digital Guardian is an excellent solution but our experience with the partner has been the most horrible experience we have ever had with any partner."
"If the client uses Windows 10 or 11 and Microsoft updates the operating system's version, Digital Guardian must update their product to match compatibility."
"When considering potential areas for improvement, it may be beneficial for Digital Guardian to optimize its processes and reduce the computational demands on the system, particularly with regard to high CPU usage. Although Digital Guardian offers numerous benefits, it can consume a substantial amount of RAM and CPU power."
"There are a lot of issues with the current version of the Endpoint agent. It's not stable, it's resource-consuming, and there are some performance issues. If they could improve the stability of the agent it would be great."
"The room for improvement with Digital Guardian is that it will be better with the Linux agent because it is the only DLP solution for Linux workstations. It still needs to upgrade the agents to the latest version for the Linux kernel."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"Technical support could be better."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
Code42 Incydr is ranked 15th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 78 reviews while Digital Guardian is ranked 10th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 11 reviews. Code42 Incydr is rated 9.0, while Digital Guardian is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Code42 Incydr writes "Provides comprehensive visibility and protection, helps in identifying the gaps in security, and comes with excellent onboarding support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". Code42 Incydr is most compared with Threat Detection, Investigation & Response (TDIR) Platform, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Morphisec, Qualys Multi-Vector EDR and Darktrace, whereas Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, CrowdStrike Falcon and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager. See our Code42 Incydr vs. Digital Guardian report.
See our list of best Data Loss Prevention (DLP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Data Loss Prevention (DLP) 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.