CrowdStrike Falcon Reviews

We use it for threat management.

We are now able to pick up more alerts than we were with McAfee. A lot of things were being missed by our security team using McAfee. 

We are happier with CloudStrike's ease of use and touch notification than McAfee's.

I noticed that the performance hits on our operating systems are a more minimal than they were on McAfee.

We have had to open a case with the technical support to get some issues and bugs resolved, but they were resolved relatively quickly.

The scalability has been good so far. We have been using it on-premise and on the cloud. We can move it to a different cloud platform, because it is cloud agnostic.

We just moved over from McAfee to CrowdStrike, which detected a lot of things that McAfee did not. We detected a malicious code on our on-premise system, even though we are migrating our application to the cloud. It was able to detect it right away to send us what the code had tried change and execute. 

Our company decided to make the switch between the two products, and I have seen the value-add since then.

It was pretty easy to set up. We baked it into our subscripts during the start-up process.

Its integration has been pretty seamless.

I would anyone to look at this product based on our company's experience so far.

We have both the on-premise and AWS versions of the product.

I use CrowdStrike Falcon for EDR and security purposes. Also, I am using file integrity monitoring, asset management, and patch management modules. Additionally, I'm also utilizing an identity protection module.

CrowdStrike Falcon needs to improve their host management system.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for a year and a half. I am using the latest version. I am a partner of CrowdStrike.

The solution offers great stability. I have faced no issues with the tool.

There are 5,000 users using the solution.

I only contacted technical support to ask a few questions, and they helped me out.

The solution's initial setup process was easy. The deployment process took only 10 hours for 5,000 clients.

The tool is a little bit expensive compared to other products, but I think it's okay owing to its quality.

Protection has been good in the solution. I got only one false positive in a year and a half, which is great.

There is no suggestion to provide because it is easy to implement, and there are no exclusions or testing required. If you plan to try it, it should work well without any issues.

Overall, I rate the product a nine point seven out of ten.

We use CrowdStrike for endpoint protection. 

As an EDR tool, we can integrate log management and event management. The solution deals with threats automatically, that's the advantage. 

I would like to see equal support across all versions. Aside from that, I would say most of the features are there. 

We have been working with the solution for six months. 

Yes, CrowdStrike is stable.

The solution is scalable, we have 1900 users. 

We have only required our local support, they have been sufficient for our needs. 

We previously used a Symantec product, but there was no local vendor support so we switched to CrowdStrike Falcon. 

The initial setup is straightforward, we deployed in two to three weeks. 

We implemented the solution through our vendor, they proposed the solution. 

As the solution is a preventative measure, it's hard to say exactly what the ROI is. 

We have a yearly subscription and find the price to be good. I'd give it a rating of four out of five for price, we got a good discount. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. There is still some grey area for us, as we haven't been using the product long enough to give a full evaluation of all the features. 

I'm currently working as a cybersecurity specialist at the Arab Open University. We are trying to create centralized station input. We have nine branches in the Middle East, so we need a cloud-based solution. Our control center is in Kuwait but all nine of our branches use CrowdStrike Falcon. Our team is located in Kuwait, which is where we handle and mitigate threats from.

The most valuable CrowdStrike Falcon feature is that the user is blocked from the network completely. I think that this is a good solution. We can do a threat analysis of any machine at any time, but that threat analysis is very limited. 

There could be more flexibility in terms of policy defining and certain features, like USB controls, should come standard with the license. Many CrowdStrike Falcon competitors are cheaper and offer a slew of features in the standard license.

CrowdStrike Falcon is not so flexible. We need a specific admin control or maybe supervised controls to change or modify the settings.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for almost a year now. 

CrowdStrike Falcon is stable.

CrowdStrike Falcon's scalability is good. We have thousands of students using this solution. 

CrowdStrike Falcon's technical support is good. 

Positive

Yes, we previously used Kaspersky.

I think CrowdStrike Falcon is a straightforward solution. It is not very complex. It's just plug and play.

We deployed in-house, with our own team. We just borrowed the set up files and deployed on all the stations. Only two persons at each branch worked on deployment, so we used certain software to deploy the files on the network. Deployment took us nearly a month. 

I'm not sure how much we are paying for CrowdStrike Falcon, but we have a yearly subscription. 

We are using this solution for advanced threat protection, over and above any antivirus for approximately 1200 end-users, or endpoints. It is able to identify any anomalies and alert on that using the AI engine. That way, there's a small security team to make them more effective, to be able to get an alert, go in and look at what's going on. 

Since I have been here, I have been keying into when people fall for phishing attacks and they either get blocked going to a website or their credentials get compromised, and somebody logs in to their Office 365 account. We were able to forensically identify that in two of the cases. Most recently, since I've been here looking at the more active response, to be able to identify and act a little bit more quickly.

I was able to look through some rapid analysis when bad things happen. More so than having to get, especially in the distributed world of post-COVID, being able to have a central place to be able to see what's going on, on the landscape of endpoints at any given time.

The feature that I find to be the most valuable, is being able to look at the system analysis and being able to baseline what is installed on the system. What does it usually do, and is it doing anything differently?

The UI is great, and the performance was great. The way it gathers and presents the information was very good and it integrates well with things with a central log aggregator, such as Splunk. You can do more big data analytics that includes security. It seems to be fully featured in all of those areas.

I think there's an opportunity to enhance the AI or at least the traps to say, if something changes from this baseline, let us know and flag it. It's got a pretty good engine to do that on its own but it's one of the things that are important to us, so I'm just trying to increase the time-to-issue identification.

By comparison to buying into the Microsoft suite, it was definitely less costly. CrowdStrike can be costly.

I have had this solution for approximately three years.

It seems stable. The performance is good.

It's a scalable solution. They are running 1400 endpoints on it right now, and it seems to be fine.

There is only one person working at it right now and they are the security engineer/operator.

If you look at how they spend their day, a tool like that does a lot with a little and can make a one man band pretty effective or much more effective. It makes the response to an issue right when it happens way more possible with such small security. 

We haven't used technical support.

The initial setup was already completed before I started with this company.

When comparing to Microsoft, CrowdStrike Falcon is more expensive.

I'm going by the client and some of the things that are driving their decisions. 

It's typical when Microsoft throws things in and it seems really cheap, even though you're spending a million and a half dollars with them. You may as well increase the value of that million and a half.

My guess is that CrowdStrike is going to maintain parity or stay ahead of Microsoft.

As I came into this organization, they were moving away from CrowdStrike. 

They upgraded their license to E5 with the security bundle from Microsoft. The goal is to start to move things. 

They are paying twice for things right now, but that will be expiring. CrowdStrike comes up for renewal next year, and they want to be off of it by then.

I haven't gone into critiquing it. Since they've already made the decision and made the investment to go to defender ATP. I'm more concerned with, are we losing anything? Do we have parity when we go from one platform to another? And if any gaps emerge, what needs to be filled?

When we did go into it and walked through it with one of the security engineers, it was snappy, and it had a nice UI. 

I had never been inside the product. I think I got a demo years ago in my CSO role, but I had never delved into a practical use case. The practical use case looked pretty cool.

For anyone who is interested in implementing this solution, I would say don't look for the cost compared to smaller applications. Look at what you're trying to do, and what you're trying to accomplish. The typical first cardinal sin of IT is buying a product and then figuring out how to use it as opposed to having a set of requirements, placing a value on that set of requirements, and then pursuing a solution that covers them the best. 

I think they probably said we've got a gap here because something bad happened to my CrowdStrike. It's an industry leader. Three years after the issue that they were treating was over, and the pain was gone, suddenly, it seems really expensive. That is an IT 101 mistake that I've found in organizations, where it's a means to an end and then it turns this to just an eyesore on the balance sheet.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use this solution on all of our endpoints and servers.

The solution has improved my organization by automating the detection and reporting of unwanted applications so we're aware of them and can respond appropriately.

The most valuable features of the solution are the detection and prevention of unwanted applications and malware services.

The solution keeps changing their website to the point that it's hard to navigate. Also, the technical support is kind of hit-or-miss. Sometimes they really respond quickly and sometimes I don't hear from them for a long time.

I began using this solution when I was hired at this company about 10 months ago, and they were using it before that.

The solution looks very stable. 

It is a scalable product. 

The technical support team often just replies to an issue with a link to an article rather than actually calling back and talking to someone and making sure the problem is solved. To me, that's kind of weak.

Neutral

The initial setup was complex. On a scale of one to five, with one being complicated and five being very easy, I would rate it about a three.

The deployment was handled in-house.

The licensing cost isn't cheap, but it's appropriate. 

My advice to those looking into this solution would be that it's in the top right quadrant of the Gartner quadrant, so it deserves consideration. You just have to be prepared to integrate it.

I would rate this solution as a four out of ten. This is mostly because of the weak technical support.

Our primary use case is for endpoint protection.

When we have detections, I get insight into the top-down view of where it thinks it saw the problem and what triggered the detection. This allows us to have insight into what it thinks it is compared to what could have we have really been doing.

It seems to do a pretty good job of protecting the host. Gives good insights when it has a detection. It's pretty incredible.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for six months.

So far, it's been 100% stable. Besides the very lightweight agent, it's all Cloud-based, so I haven't had any downtime.

Scalability is super easy. The deployment was easy. It's all price based. Money is the biggest challenge, not deploying it. It requires one system engineer. 

We have around 400 users. There are five of us who manage it, including the help desk, system engineers, and the director.

We haven't needed to contact support yet. 

We previously used Cylance. We switched because they weren't innovative. It was the same product that we bought three years ago. They were a great product and they had a job and they did it well. They just didn't ever innovate and they never improved. It's the same products we bought for the same three years. CrowdStrike was more innovative and it seemed to be a better long-term product. They seem to be improving constantly.

The initial setup was very easy. The deployment took about 60 days. We had a few methods of deployment. We did a push method. We had an agent tell all the machines that we were able to script it and push the apps to that.

We used the project management of CrowdStrike's themselves for the deployment. They were really good. 

We haven't had any outages based on malware or ransomware. I can't put numbers to it, but not having that kind of an outbreak definitely has an ROI attached to it.

We looked at a few other solutions but the main competitor was Carbon Black. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. It does what it needs to do but there's always room for improvement. 

We use Falcon to check the login attempts of the users. We can see who has logged in and when. We can see which workstation is assigned to each user. CrowdStrike helps us enforce policies, such as USB policies and users recycling passwords. 

CrowdStrike is deployed on every workstation, so policy changes can be enforced on all of them. It lowers the manual work on each of the workstations. It has helped us manage device usage in our environment. 

I like CrowdStrike's policies. The integration is easy to do. I can remember once when Falcon prevented a security breach occurred because someone clicked on a phishing link, and their credential was compromised. We used threat tracking to isolate the device from networks. 

I have used Falcon for two years.

I rate Falcon nine out of 10 for stability. 

I rate Falcon eight out of 10 for scalability. 

I rate CrowdStrike Falcon nine out of 10.