CrowdStrike Falcon Reviews

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 use CrowdStrike Falcon for endpoint protection.

CrowdStrike Falcon has helped our organization because it is transparent to the user base.

CrowdStrike Falcon's most valuable feature is the fact that it's not getting in the way of our workforce and their workflow.

The overall cost of CrowdStrike Falcon could be reduced.

I have used CrowdStrike Falcon within the last 12 months.

CrowdStrike Falcon is stable.

The scalability of CrowdStrike Falcon is very high. It is scaled across all of our systems without any problem.

We have approximately 1,000 people using this solution across the USA. We have plans to continue our user base and any additional endpoints will have CrowdStrike Falcon on them.

I rate the technical support from CrowdStrike Falcon a five out of five.

We previously used another solution and we switched to CrowdStrike Falcon because it was superior.

The initial setup of CrowdStrike Falcon is straightforward.

I have not seen a return on investment from using CrowdStrike Falcon, but others in my company have. 

The price of CrowdStrike Falcon is expensive.

My advice to others is that CrowdStrike Falcon is certainly a workable solution. It does what it needs to do. Whenever I say that our company is using CrowdStrike Falcon people's impressions is that it is an expensive solution."

I rate CrowdStrike Falcon a ten out of ten.

We use CrowdStrike Falcon on all our devices, server, and workstations for security.

Cyberattack detection is very good. We use it for detecting different vulnerabilities, such as ransomware, virus, and malware. It is a good product today when compared to Symantec that we used previously.

The management of the solution could improve.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for approximately two years.

CrowdStrike Falcon is a new product and it is too soon to give a full report on the stability. We receive updates all time, and it has been more frequent than other solutions, such as Symantec. However, it has been somewhat stable and in a few months, I expect it to be even better.

The solution is in the cloud and this allows for the scalability to be very good.

We use this solution worldwide and we have approximately 80,000 people using it.

The technical support is good, they are available for our needs.

We previously used Symantec and we found the detection better with CrowdStrike Falcon.

The installation of the solution is complex, it is not easy.

There is an annual license required to use this solution. 

I rate CrowdStrike Falcon an eight out of ten.

It is used for stopping data breaches. 

It is totally on the cloud. It cannot be deployed on-prem. They don't have any on-prem options.

It is very useful for endpoint protection and stopping data breaches. That's its real strength.

I like the Overwatch feature the most. 

Its performance is brilliant. It is a good, lightweight agent. I've seen it do really good things on the endpoints, and there is no problem with its performance.

On the firewall management side, there should be more granularity. There should also be more granularity for device control. Everything else is brilliant.

I have been using this solution for four years.

It is stable.

It is the most scalable solution among all solutions that I've seen so far. Because it's cloud-based, it's really quick to roll out to 1,000, 10,000, or 100,000 endpoints. You can scale it depending on how many endpoints you've got. It is a good solution.

We have about 10 customers who use this solution.

My experience has been good so far.

Its installation is quick and easy. I wouldn't change anything there. The duration depends on the number of endpoints to which you want to push it, but it is fast. I've seen them roll thousands in a matter of hours.

The number of people required for its deployment and maintenance depends on the package you take, but generally, it has a much lower requirement than any other endpoint protection solution.

My advice is to go with a partner that has got experience. I would also advise seriously considering the Overwatch feature. 

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

CrowdStrike Falcon is working on our production servers.

CrowdStrike Falcon is a very light solution. It does not use too much processor or RAM.

In the future release of CrowdStrike Falcon, they should add a sandbox feature.

I have used CrowdStrike Falcon within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable.

CrowdStrike Falcon is scalable. We have approximately 400 servers using this solution.

We have plans to increase the usage of this solution in one or two years.

We used technical support for the implementation of the solution and it was a good experience. They know the products well and they were able to give us all the answers to the questions that we had.

The setup is really easy. The full deployment took two months.

For the deployment of the solution, we used a three-person team and for the maintenance, we use the whole infrastructure team of four people.

The price of CrowdStrike Falcon could be better. It is very expensive, we pay approximately $900 per month for the licenses. There are not any additional fees.

Before choosing CrowdStrike Falcon we evaluated Sophos and Microsoft solutions.

The product is really good, but there is a lot of additional features that you need to have for it to be a complete solution. Be sure that your budget is enough to acquire the complete solution that you need.

I rate CrowdStrike Falcon a ten out of ten.

Our primary use for CrowdStrike is as an EDR system. We are protecting more then 9.000 devices.

I like the detection rates of mobile threats.

The policies allow us to define the level of protection.

The dashboards are good, as well as user management.

The management reporting functionality needs to be improved.

We would like to see more features for vulnerability management included.

We have been using CrowdStrike Falcon since one year.

This is a stable product.

We haven't had any problems with scalability and it expands with the company's needs.

We have 20,000 users and about 20 of them are administrators.

We have been in touch with technical support for a few issues. They are quite good and the response is fast.

We were using Cylance prior to CrowdStrike, and these two products overlapped for a time. We also use an on-premises solution called F-Secure.

CrowdStrike has a much lower rate of false positives than Cylance and the dashboard makes it easier to use.

The initial setup is very simple. It took two months to deploy for 20,000 clients.

Our in-house team handled the implementation and deployment. No maintenance is required.

The pricing is good and there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees. It is similar to that of Cylance and our on-premises solution.

This is a product that I absolutely recommend.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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 this solution for threat protection and endpoint security.

Recently, we added on CrowdStrike OverWatch and Insightsoftware for better reporting. OverWatch monitors East-West issues that CrowdStrike Protect doesn't see. New next-generation endpoint security doesn't scan your PC. It doesn't scan files nightly. People have to get past that, it's so old school. 

I have 50 end-users, one hundred endpoints, and workers of all types, both in-house and remote workers.

With the addition of Overwatch and the Insight tool, the reporting has gotten better and I've gained some quality insight that helps me remedy compliance issues and maintain security posture; however, in a year and a half, we haven't had an actual positive detection across a hundred endpoints. The reason for that is mostly due to our employee training and the way that our complete security stack is configured. I hope that the way that I've got it configured right now is the sole reason that we literally aren't letting things in.

If the solution sees some issues, it reports them. Even though they're false positives, in a different scenario, what it's reporting could be a threat. Usually, they're just executables that were downloaded and installed by me. That's to be fully expected and maybe they came from a vendor, but it wasn't signed. 

It's given me a level of confidence that my network is secure — the fact that it's not finding anything; however, I am not experiencing the issues that competitors are saying I should be experiencing. I literally have to test it manually to know it's working.

Falcon Protect looks at processes and issues in real-time.

CrowdStrike Falcon by itself does not supply in-depth reporting. 

Falcon Protect does what it does. It's endpoint security — nothing more, nothing less. 

What it does, It does well. However, if you need more information on what it found and how it got there (including board reporting and compliance reporting), that's not there. Some of the other solutions that are available give you that, right out of the box.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for the past year and a half.

We haven't experienced any issues regarding the stability of CrowdStrike Falcon.

CrowdStrike Falcon is scalable. I've only got one hundred endpoints and I know companies that are hundreds of times bigger who use it.

Trying to get somebody on the phone might not always be the easiest thing, but they usually respond in a fairly timely manner. I haven't had any issues where I've needed them to immediately fix things.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give their customer support a rating of nine.

We had a Vipre solution, but it was an On-Prem solution. The server was aging out and the software was up for renewal. It wasn't working well with our remote workers; they're not literally connected to my network so updating them was always a pain-point without a cloud-based solution.

We were going to transition to "cloud" and Vipre just wasn't really up to the level of CrowdStrike at the time.

The deployment literally took about 15 minutes across the wide area network. Regarding configuration, we took a look at it with their tech support and Implementation team. There's literally maybe a dozen settings and we basically maxed them out.

The price of CrowdStrike Falcon is a little high, but it can be negotiated.

If you're thinking about implementing this solution, I would suggest getting Overwatch and Insight along with it. Also, don't be afraid to try and negotiate for a better price.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.

The reporting is part of the Overwatch and Insight combination. It's doing what we want it to do and it's not causing a lot of overhead. Like I said earlier, maybe we're an anomaly. We don't have a lot of issues on our network.