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

CrowdStrike Falcon vs MetaDefender comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 11, 2026

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

CrowdStrike Falcon
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
1st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
138
Ranking in other categories
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (6th), Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (1st), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (1st), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (1st), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (1st), Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) (1st), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
MetaDefender
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
32nd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (34th), Anti-Malware Tools (29th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) category, the mindshare of CrowdStrike Falcon is 4.7%, down from 9.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of MetaDefender is 1.7%, down from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
CrowdStrike Falcon4.7%
MetaDefender1.7%
Other93.6%
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
 

Featured Reviews

Waleed Omar - PeerSpot reviewer
Information Security Specialist at Arab Open University
Provides effective real-time threat detection with potential for cost optimization
Some features such as device control, firewall management, and file analysis are standalone products that we need to purchase separately. If these features came out of the box within the product, it would be much more beneficial for us. Other providers such as SentinelOne include these features in their base product. We attended a CrowdStrike Falcon event where they discussed some shallow AI features, but we cannot see these in our panel yet. We work with different solutions such as Darktrace and SocRadar, where AI features are automatically displayed in our dashboards after release. However, for CrowdStrike Falcon, we cannot see these features.
Eido Ben Noun - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Architect at Diffiesec
Multi‑engine detection has significantly improved secure file transfers and threat prevention
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The initial setup is very simple."
"Its integration capability is valuable. It integrates easily with any OS."
"It has good features for threat detection."
"The solution's reporting console is phenomenal, and I can get a lot of data out of it."
"The machine learning behavior for anomaly detection is a valuable feature. It helps identify any suspicious or unusual activities within the system."
"The scalability is good."
"The pay-as-you-go model enabled me to deploy quickly from the AWS Marketplace management account, scaled protection for workloads without upfront commitments, and reduced the initial operational overhead."
"The solution is silent and sits on your system as one single agent."
"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
"I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done."
"MetaDefender is 100% stable, making it one of the best cybersecurity solutions we offer, which provides confidence in promoting and recommending it to others."
 

Cons

"A year and a half ago or more, if you put in a support request by email, then it wasn't timely addressed. It could be a day to three days before you received a response, which was a bit frustrating. There was a lot of customer feedback around this issue, which has been greatly refined."
"It does take more time to scan than other solutions."
"CrowdStrike Suites and the way that it bundles things can be a bit challenging. It should be easier to integrate with the other stuff that they sell or be included with what they sell. We have one piece, then they are talking about another piece on vulnerability management all of the sudden, and we don't own that piece. We can see it in the console, but nothing shows up. It simply appears within the tool as an option, but we can't use it without purchasing it."
"The technical support could improve because I am in India and the support I receive is from the UK or Australia. It is difficult to manage the time difference. The service could be faster. However, when we do have the support they are knowledgeable."
"I would love to see more investment in Insight because CrowdStrike have an opportunity to potentially displace some of the vulnerability management vendors with the visibility they can see over time. I want to see them continue to evolve, e.g., what other things can they disrupt which are operational things we have to continue to do as an organization."
"Support, particularly related to after-sales and after deployment, could be improved a bit. If you need to connect to support, it takes at least a day to reach the support team and get a proper reply."
"CrowdStrike Falcon could improve by adding manual scanning or serverless scanning. It is not available at this time."
"The overall cost of CrowdStrike Falcon could be reduced."
"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
"The main improvement needed is pricing because, as an enterprise solution, smaller partners do not often receive the attention they deserve."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay between $30-50 per user for a yearly license, which is more expensive than SentinelOne or Bitdefender. However, CrowdStrike gives better value for money."
"Crowdstrike Falcon is relatively cheap."
"The price is high in comparison to similar brands."
"CrowdStrike is a reasonably priced tool."
"The pricing and licensing are reasonable. I don't think we are getting charged more than what it is worth. It is fair, but I do not like how it is a la carte. I realize they do that so other organizations can buy and get the agent, getting it cheaper than you could otherwise. However, if you want the main core package, which has all the main features with the exception of maybe the multi-cloud protections, that can get pricier for an organization. So, you have to pick and choose what you want. I do not care for a la carte pricing."
"The price of CrowdStrike Falcon is expensive."
"It has an annual license, and it is not that expensive."
"The pricing is definitely high but you get what you pay for, and it's not so high that it prices itself out of the market."
"We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) solutions are best for your needs.
884,328 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Healthcare Company
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business48
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise62
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Comparing CrowdStrike Falcon to Cortex XDR (Palo Alto)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Both Cortex XDR and Crowd Strike Falcon offer cloud-based solutions that are very scalable, secure, and user-friendly. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto offers ...
How does Crowdstrike Falcon compare with Darktrace?
Both of these products perform similarly and have many outstanding attributes. CrowdStrike Falcon offers an amazing user interface that makes setup easy and seamless. CrowdStrike Falcon offers a cl...
How does Microsoft Defender for Endpoint compare with Crowdstrike Falcon?
The CrowdStrike solution delivers a lot of information about incidents. It has a very light sensor that will never push your machine hardware to "test", you don't have the usual "scan now" feature ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for MetaDefender?
The pricing of MetaDefender is about hundreds of dollars. If I remember correctly, when someone attempted to buy from us one instance of OPSWAT, it was about nine thousand dollars for multi-scannin...
What needs improvement with MetaDefender?
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaD...
What is your primary use case for MetaDefender?
I have used MetaDefender for one and a half years, deploying it in different environments and managing a team of professional services that deploy MetaDefender products in customer environments. I ...
 

Also Known As

CrowdStrike Falcon XDR, CrowdStrike Falcon Threat Intelligence, CrowdStrike Identity Protection, CrowdStrike Falcon Surface, CrowdStrike Falcon Platform
OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike Falcon vs. MetaDefender and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,328 professionals have used our research since 2012.