No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Expel vs Field Effect MDR comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Expel
Ranking in Managed Detection and Response (MDR)
16th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
SOC as a Service (4th)
Field Effect MDR
Ranking in Managed Detection and Response (MDR)
4th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Managed Detection and Response (MDR) category, the mindshare of Expel is 1.9%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Field Effect MDR is 1.9%, down from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Managed Detection and Response (MDR) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Field Effect MDR1.9%
Expel1.9%
Other96.2%
Managed Detection and Response (MDR)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2578461 - PeerSpot reviewer
MDR Specialist at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Rapid threat management and diverse technology integration for effective monitoring
Expel has made it easier for companies to monitor and manage various log sources. With its vast integration portfolio, customers can efficiently monitor diverse environments. Time to value is quick, as Expel can turn their service up very rapidly. They have both automated active responses and human processes that quicken threat resolution.
reviewer2753850 - PeerSpot reviewer
Owner at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Customer security is enhanced with software and update detection while licensing process needs improvement
A quick specific example of how I use Field Effect MDR to keep my customers secure is that it helps me identify computers that need updates, even when I believe they are already updated. Field Effect MDR finds software and Windows updates that aren't being completed, which I find very valuable.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Their threat hunting protocol and process with AI and machine learning are strong, allowing for active and rapid responses."
"Unlike previous solutions, where we were solely informed of security incidents, Covalence's MDR allows for real-time incident prevention."
"The AROs have been incredibly helpful."
"The most valuable features are Action Recommendations of Observations, which keep us informed about existing vulnerabilities so we can proactively update our endpoints and those of our customers against potential threats."
"It is very user-friendly. We have regular reports to see what is going on."
"A client of ours with Field Effect MDR is less likely to be a victim of a cyber attack."
"I appreciate the "set it and forget it" nature of Field Effect Covalence."
"I like how comprehensive Field Effect Covalence is."
"Hackers are trying to breach a business when they least expect it - that's often at night, weekends, and holidays. Covalence never sleeps or misses a second of monitoring."
 

Cons

"The one area where Expel may not measure up is if a customer requires a managed SIEM as part of their overall solution. There's a gap there, and solutions might require third-party assistance for management."
"Covalence's SEAS feature wasn't very user-friendly."
"I'd suggest that Field Effect focus more on including things like phishing simulation and cybersecurity training."
"One limitation is that if someone takes their laptop outside the office building, the DNS firewall provides minimal coverage, and we are unable to generate reports."
"The area where they can make it better is by giving responses to the end-user. For example, when there is an alert to the administrator, I get it. I have to copy and paste everything to everyone... And then I have to follow up with them, and it's a real pain."
"The cost of the solution has room for improvement."
"They put too much detail into the emails."
"They could use more third-party integrations with other MSP tools."
"I would like Covalence to include patching."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The pricing isn't sized, so Field Effect doesn't make it easy for anything under 25 users. I'm not crazy about that."
"Field Effect is fairly priced from my perspective. You get a lot of bang for the buck with this and a level of visibility that provides you with greater peace of mind knowing that the system is carefully monitored. You also have automated responses for known malicious behavior at any time of the day. Someone could have their Office 365 mailbox compromised at 2 in the morning on a Saturday when most people are asleep or not paying attention, and the system can prevent an issue in an automated way."
"The pricing is comparable to what else is out there."
"While Field Effect Covalence's pricing seems competitive for the market, the biggest hurdle lies in the lack of dedicated security budgets within many organizations."
"The licensing model itself is solid, but we're ironing out some inconsistencies in how customer profiles are configured."
"A top-tier competitor to Field Effect in Magic Quadrant that we had been using until our switch to Field Effect was a great product, but each capability had an additional charge. We had to license modules separately, and each of those add-ons had to be added onto its own consumption and agreement. It was a nightmare from a billing perspective because we had multiple agreements, and each one had a jagged anniversary or a renewal anniversary. It was a nightmare, whereas Field Effect MDR is one product."
"The pricing is fair and reasonable."
"We were particularly impressed with their pricing model, which charges per user rather than per system."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed Detection and Response (MDR) solutions are best for your needs.
886,174 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
11%
Construction Company
10%
Retailer
8%
Computer Software Company
37%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise3
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Expel?
Expel's pricing has adapted as the market evolved and has become competitive over the past twelve months.
What needs improvement with Expel?
The one area where Expel may not measure up is if a customer requires a managed SIEM as part of their overall solution. There's a gap there, and solutions might require third-party assistance for m...
What is your primary use case for Expel?
I have experience reselling Expel. Customers often come to me wanting to evaluate multiple providers to make a choice based on their specific use cases, requirements, technology investments, and so...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Field Effect Covalence?
Pricing was initially a concern, but the recent updates have resolved that by offering a more accessible buying cost.
What needs improvement with Field Effect Covalence?
One way Field Effect MDR can be improved is through its licensing process, which is not ideal. The licensing process is difficult because I have to access a separate website to complete it.
What is your primary use case for Field Effect Covalence?
My main use case for Field Effect MDR is keeping my customers secure.
 

Also Known As

Workbench, Expel SOC-as-a-Service
Field Effect Covalence
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Amanda Fennell CSO
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Huntress, CrowdStrike, Arctic Wolf Networks and others in Managed Detection and Response (MDR). Updated: April 2026.
886,174 professionals have used our research since 2012.