We performed a comparison between CylanceOPTICS and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"This is stable and scalable."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"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."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to respond to zero-day and unknown threats."
"It is a bit early in our evaluation process to give proper feedback, although so far, the overall feedback is good."
"I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. I would give it a close ten as possible because, like SentinelOne, I've seen incompatibility. Whereas Cylance, I've seen none."
"CylanceOPTICS is easy to use."
"It automatically blocks the threats, helping us investigate if they harm the environment."
"The solution has a high level of trust in the industry."
"It's pretty unintrusive"
"Cylance is not a signature-based protection solution and instead works proactively using AI and ML models to patrol for malicious behavior."
"The EDR feature is most valuable."
"It doesn't cause the slowness of the system, which is one of the reasons why I like it."
"Auto-remediation: When the product sees malware, it resolves the issue immediately. This protects the machine."
"It's pretty easy to scale."
"We can react to threats faster and stop them from spreading from one machine to another. It protects from suspicious email attachment downloads. It will lock down the SOC and the workstations."
"It is quite stable. We have not had any cases, i.e., viruses, that would require a reboot, etc. We have never had a situation where we needed to reinstall the tools as a result of the Defender application or a feature being corrupt."
"This solution definitely increases our security posture. When you are reviewing your existing fleet or endpoints and based on the configuration that you put out of your Defender for Endpoint, you then receive a security score from Microsoft. Depending on what rules you have configured, what policies you have deployed, and what attack surface reduction rules that you have set up and deployed, it is almost gamifying information security in the sense that you are always trying to achieve a higher score. The more hardening you perform on your endpoints, the better score you receive. This generally tends to give you a better peace of mind, but also makes you secure at the same time."
"The antivirus features are very useful."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"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."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The support needs improvement."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"Too many false positives are reported."
"One minor issue that somebody mentioned was that they didn't like their management console."
"The product's initial setup process could be easy."
"The product's technical support is slow."
"The detection component is something that they have to work on."
"Our customers would like to see more automation with respect to how threats are handled once they have been detected."
"The tools are ineffective. It flags a lot of things. To give you an example, it detected Google Chrome and blocked the user's access to it. That it mistook for malicious, which turned out to be a false positive."
"CylanceOPTICS could benefit from more granular control in the timeline-building process. Ideally, users would be able to drill deeper into the analysis rather than have the machine dictate the direction."
"The solution can be more user-friendly."
"The scalability could be improved - I would rate it between a seven and an eight."
"I would like the solution to be able to prevent unauthorized programs from installing and to block unauthorised URLs which is similar to web filtering product."
"With the XDR dashboard, when you're doing an investigation and you're drilling down to obtain further details it tends to open many different tabs that take you away from your main tabs. You can end up having 10 tabs open for one investigation. This is another area for improvement because you can end up getting lost in the multiple tabs. Therefore, the central console can be improved so that it does not take you to several different pages for each investigation."
"The onboarding and deployment could be more user-friendly, and there is room to grow in some of the reports. I don't want them to be oversimplified or overly complex, but there is room for improvement in the reporting it can do. It's relatively minor."
"In terms of improvement, they update the platform it seems quite a bit. Every month something is in a new spot or something changed somewhere. There should be less of that."
"The price, in general, could always be a little bit cheaper."
"It's not quite a mature solution just yet. It needs more time to grow and develop."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
CylanceOPTICS is ranked 33rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 10 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 182 reviews. CylanceOPTICS is rated 7.6, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CylanceOPTICS writes "Enables the isolation and inoculation of infected machines, offering a practical solution for dealing with threats and preventing their spread within the environment". 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". CylanceOPTICS is most compared with , 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 CylanceOPTICS vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.