We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and Intercept X 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."The stability is very good."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"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."
"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 most valuable feature is the capability of the command used by the machine so that we see the kind of performance that is running."
"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."
"Cybereason's threat hunting and investigation are the most valuable features. Threat hunting is a user-friendly feature that keeps you safe. Investigation offers an added value that I haven't seen with other EDR services. It allows you to find specific policy problems within your environment."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"I haven't had any issues with the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"We have found the pricing to be reasonable."
"This is really good because it's applicable to zero-day threats."
"The pricing is fair. It's not too costly for our small organization."
"The EDR (Enhanced Data Detection and Response) and the DLP (Data Loss Prevention) components are valuable assets."
"It's quite simple to use and user friendly."
"The most valuable feature is the anti-ransomware capability. It's been helpful because we have been seeing a lot of information around what the ransomware hit."
"The base product and the anti-malware feature are most valuable."
"I consider the heuristics to be most valuable, the fact that the solution does not work solely on signatures."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"The solution is not stable."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"It should be more stable, and the sensor needs improvement in terms of connectivity."
"Cybereason does not have sandbox functionality."
"They need to improve their technical support services."
"It initially took some time to deploy."
"The network coverage becomes an issue most of the time."
"Ad hoc higher-level reporting to senior management can be improved or can be implemented. That's definitely an area of improvement that they need to focus on."
"Reporting could be a bit more granular so that we had the ability to check regions and countries. I just noticed that, for instance, if I look at our servers, it's either "contained" or it's "not contained". I don't have the option, for instance, to look at countries. It only allows me to look at users as one big group."
"The after sales service and support could be improved."
"The product’s DDoS and AI features must be improved."
"We are not able to merge the sub-estates. If we create multiple sub-states and there may be instances where a user is in a different sub-state, it may not be possible for us to relocate that user from one sub-state to another through the console. We have to merge them manually which is not ideal."
"The technical support is the lone sore-point when dealing with this product."
"When we load Intercept X, it puts a load on the device. When it is scanning, it slows down the device. A system with basic specifications completely slows down till the scan is complete. They should improve this part."
"Sophos Intercept X doesn't have its own firewall that utilizes the Windows Firewall or intrusion prevention."
"We had some initial problems with our deployment, and they were more around uninstalling Sophos Basic and installing Sophos Intercept X. We had some challenges with some of the uninstallation scripts. They can improve the deployment of Sophos Intercept X when there is already an existing Sophos version. They can also provide more information in the form of best practices and lessons learned from previous findings. A knowledge base with this type of information would be helpful."
"The customer service and support could be improved in regards to response time. It could be faster."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 44th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 19 reviews while Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 101 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4. 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 Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Darktrace, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Seqrite Endpoint Security. See our Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. Intercept X 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.