We performed a comparison between Digital Guardian and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The stability is very good."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"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."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"It has been scalable."
"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."
"This software is easy to use."
"Defender has very little impact on the end-user and the agent works quite well with a minimal impact on the client and server."
"Its simplicity is the most valuable. It also has very good integration. We like it."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint's WCS function, a content filtering solution, has proven to be the most useful, stable, and reliable option for our current needs."
"The protection that it provides is quite good."
"One of the valuable features of the solution is the small updates that keep my machine relatively clean from any infections."
"Within its class I think, it has a high and decent detection rate."
"We can run the virus scan across our entire environment."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"Detections could be improved."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"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."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"Technical support could be better."
"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."
"It makes your Surface devices hot. It is resource-intensive. It strains your CPU, not more than other file scanners around, but it also does a lot more. When you are transmitting files or data, it is continuously scanning the traffic and analyzing it bit by bit to see what's going on, and that, of course, is costly in terms of CPU. It is CPU intensive, and if you are on battery, it drains your battery fast. That's the only drawback that it has."
"The pricing could be a bit better."
"The interface could be improved."
"We'd like the stability to be better."
"Integration with third-party vendors could be better. It would be better if it integrates with other protection solutions or other products outside of Microsoft. Nowadays, anti-virus protection doesn't really have to be planned as overall protection for your environment in terms of security. There are really different avenues that bad actors can take to wreak havoc on your machine."
"Cortex... has good investigation capabilities, out-of-the-box, in case there is an event that you'd like to investigate. It's quite convenient. Microsoft has those capabilities as well, but you need a bit more training on the product to get the basic information that you can get out-of-the-box with Cortex."
"It needs to improve the cybersecurity for lateral movements. For example, when a hacker tries to enter a machine, they try to get the password by doing a lateral movement."
"The time it takes to implement policies has room for improvement."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
Digital Guardian is ranked 19th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 11 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 2nd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 182 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". 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". Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, CrowdStrike Falcon and Faronics Deep Freeze, 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 Digital Guardian vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint report.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) 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.
