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

Deep Instinct Prevention Platform vs WatchGuard EPDR comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 2024

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

Deep Instinct Prevention Pl...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
41st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (16th)
WatchGuard EPDR
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
43rd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (34th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is 0.7%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of WatchGuard EPDR is 0.5%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

Elena Yau - PeerSpot reviewer
Prevention, in advance, saves us remediation time
We have a PHI (protected health information) committee, and some of the things that we review on a weekly basis are incidents. For example, if there was malware or adware or some kind of phishing attempt, or even ransomware, we would have to investigate and see if there was any PHI impact. We've seen small things because some kind of adware made its way through the browser from some malicious link, and it's really hard to prevent those. We're putting more levels of filtering around that. There are some product development ideas that we have been working on alongside the DI team, and they've been super helpful. There are definitely a lot more little areas of improvement for the interface. Also, we have talked with the DI team about adding the forensic piece, which is what we do a lot. That would be added value and they've just recently provided more individuals to think about the roadmap. That's part of their strategy and one of the good features that they want to bring on. Hopefully, they can bring that to fruition and that will ease our workflow a little bit more. The additional predictive and prevention capabilities in the 3.0 version, that don't require special rules and configuration, help our organization. The only caveat is that when things get done automatically, I would appreciate more logging of what's happening in the background, if it is doing some kind of intervention. If we need to do some forensics, we should be able to backtrack from the log that gets uploaded to our cloud instance and see, forensically, what the root cause was. We should be able to see what instigated that trigger by DI and what exactly was done. That's a missing piece. It does a good job of preventing, but then we don't know what were the symptoms of the prevention. Let's say that there was like a PowerShell block. We'll see an indicator on the dashboard and we'll look at the logs and investigate. Sometimes we find that the logs that are captured locally on the endpoint itself are not very thorough. We were coached through our training with DI that, when troubleshooting, the DI team would always ask for the logs from the endpoint. We know what we need to do to look at something. But the logging for DI doesn't capture everything. There are some things that are missing. When it comes to root-cause analysis, or kill-chain analysis, and figuring out exactly what happened, it's very hard to do that right now on the product. I have used Carbon Black before and they're pretty good with the forensic analysis. That does save some efforts of my one engineer and myself when we have to go through the PHI committee. Right now, with Di, that feels like a blind spot. Another area for development is making the license clean-up a little bit easier. We always have to manually uninstall agents. If there were some way to remove the licensing and do better license management on the platform, that would help my team as well.
Phillip Evely - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides good reporting features, saves time, and protects endpoints
The setup is very easy. We have deployed the solution on-premise but can also do it on the cloud. It has a cloud functionality. I can push it from the cloud directly to the endpoint, or I can do it via a group policy. The enterprise-wide deployment takes a day. It is very simple. Once the agent is deployed in any subnet, it monitors the network traffic and informs me about endpoints that don't have the agent. I get alerted via a report. If I have a problem, I can manually deploy on those endpoints. The product is set to auto-update. It updates on its own.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most important thing is that it is for prevention. It prevents attacks of any type of malware. Normally, what we've seen in other products is that they are not for prevention. They isolate a possible threat that they don't understand or know about, and then they check it with our database to see if it needs any correction or elimination. This means that the threat is already inside a customer's base, whereas Deep Instinct prevents a threat from getting in. Prevention is basically done by an agent in each installation, PCU, or product. An agent has its own intelligence to be able to detect if it should stop a threat or not. It has been taught. It is like a brain that has been taught to react according to any possible threat. Deep Instinct is very light. It doesn't take too much CPU attention or memory. It doesn't slow down the performance. You don't really realize any change in the performance, which makes it very different from other solutions. They are usually heavy for the users."
"This solution is good at catching viruses and it's very effective and lightweight, which are all things that you want in an antivirus product."
"Deep Instinct's detection rate is close to 100 percent."
"The CPU consumption is low compared to what I have been using in my current environment, which is Sophos. The footprint is a lot smaller, about a quarter of Sophos. It is very small."
"It has given us a more structured approach for detecting and preventing threats. It has machine learning-based detection and prevention. Their engines, in even older versions, are able to pick these viruses and malware. They have posted a lot of use cases online for detecting different viruses and malware that have been out for many years."
"It has the lowest false-positive ratio that I have come across. I have only had one which was a legitimate file that I had to whitelist. It was for one of the applications I was trying to install and integrate. But the false positive ratio is very low."
"When we were looking at Carbon Black and Sophos, the prevention pieces weren't as strong when compared to DI, which is why we decided to go with DI... I would rather have a product that does the prevention up front and saves me the effort of having to wipe someone's workstation."
"The product offers integration capabilities and is also easy to use."
"WatchGuard is commendable for its work on threats."
"WatchGuard EPDR improves organization primarily by supporting the IT team rather than the end users directly. It helps IT teams accomplish more with fewer people. One of its standout features is the patch management solution, which allows companies without up-to-date services like WSUS to manage patches for Windows and Linux systems. Additionally, it provides the usual endpoint protection features such as virus and malware protection, application control, and website control."
"The reporting feature is valuable."
"The product's most valuable features are the zero-trust application service and its capability to detect threats and attacks."
"I can put tons of load on it."
 

Cons

"I would like to see improvement in the user interface so that the user has more control. For example, it would be good if a user could change their grouping if they want to be part of another group. Or if I want to right-click and scan a specific file that I just imported, that would be helpful. Sometimes you just want to do an extra scan to make sure you're safe."
"I would love to see a really exceptional, outstanding level of reporting. I know that's like asking for a unicorn to leap out of the sky with any of these products... When everything works, clients began to wonder: "Everything's fine. Why do we need you?" That's where the reporting capabilities would allow us to really demonstrate: "Hey, here's what's actually going on, Mr. Customer.""
"Reporting on incidents needs improvement."
"Due to the nature of deep learning, it’s sometimes difficult to determine why the AI model has blocked a specific file, although this has improved over time."
"I would like a little more training for the admins."
"Some features are too resource intensive."
"The Deep Instinct client stops working when you have two servers and you add high availability or Windows Failover Cluster mode. It doesn't work in a clustered mode. I haven't yet had time to go back and talk with their support and get it fixed. It would be good if they can make the installation independent of an actual user. Currently, its installation is dependent on the actual user being logged in. For example, a computer has to be logged in for the installation to happen. If it is not logged in, then on the cloud platform, it is going to show that the client is offline. On the management side of the cloud platform, we would like to have the administrators segregated by logical entities. We have told them that on their cloud management platform, we would like to be able to segregate clients into different logical entities or organizations so that the administrators are able to manage only those entities that are within their designated organization."
"I think it's probably the administration, especially the administration platform, which could be improved in the solution. It's clunky and hard to navigate, especially for inexperienced technicians."
"The product is available at a very high price, making it an area where improvements are required."
"The AV and scanning features could be a little bit better."
"The categories in the web filtering should be more comprehensive. When a URL is not categorized, I face issues."
"The categories in the web filtering should be more comprehensive."
"WatchGuard EPDR does have areas for improvement. One significant gap is the lack of a virtual patching feature integrated into the endpoint security. This would be particularly useful for endpoints running operating systems that are no longer supported, such as Windows 7."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Their pricing is very competitive. It is good, fair, and a lot cheaper than what we were doing with Cylance."
"In comparison to the other products out there, it's exceptionally competitively priced. When you consider the lower administrative overhead that it facilitates, it's an absolute value."
"There is a need for customers of the product to pay towards the licensing costs of the tool."
"There are no additional costs on the price, and our company has a support contract, which bundles in those services anyway."
"The pricing is a little bit expensive but we are satisfied with DI's performance."
"We are a nonprofit. The MSP had provides pretty decent nonprofit rates for us. This was one of the key factors that made us choose Deep Instinct over its competitors who were significantly more expensive."
"One thing about their licensing program that I like is that just one covers the server as well as on the endpoint as well as mobile devices. There is no complexity in calculating how many SKUs I need for mobile, for laptop, for desktop, and for servers. It's very simple and that makes it much easier to budget."
"If I include the false positive rate and the detection rate in the comparison, Deep Instinct is worth its price."
"The solution's pricing is better compared to other products."
"The price is excellent."
"The product is available at a high price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
847,772 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Healthcare Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Comms Service Provider
15%
Computer Software Company
10%
Security Firm
7%
Non Profit
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Deep Instinct?
The product offers integration capabilities and is also easy to use.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Deep Instinct?
There is a need for customers of the product to pay towards the licensing costs of the tool.
What needs improvement with Deep Instinct?
The solution's stability is good. If the tool was able to provide fine-tuning capabilities from the product's end depending on the environment of its user, then it would be a good improvement in th...
What do you like most about WatchGuard EPDR?
The product's most valuable features are the zero-trust application service and its capability to detect threats and attacks.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for WatchGuard EPDR?
The pricing is slightly high, but the product quality justifies it. The price is fair, neither too high nor too low. Considering all its features, an increase in price would be justifiable.
What needs improvement with WatchGuard EPDR?
I have not found anything requiring improvement. However, overall, the category level should be enhanced. The categories in the web filtering should be more comprehensive. When a URL is not categor...
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Deep Instinct Prevention Platform vs. WatchGuard EPDR and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
847,772 professionals have used our research since 2012.