SentinelOne Singularity Complete Reviews

We use SentinelOne as an endpoint protection solution.

The overall integration functionality for this solution could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for three years. 

This is a scalable solution.

The customer support for this solution is good.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I would recommend that anyone considering using this solution first understand exactly how this solution works and what their business needs. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We are an IT company that sells solutions, and this is one of the products that we provide to our customers. We work on certain opportunities that require the capabilities of SentinelOne, but we do not use it for our own purposes.

This solution is used to protect endpoints against malware and other threats.

A lot of the deployments are hybrid. In Lebanon, the cloud is not used to a large extent. Most of the customers use on-premises solutions.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the user-friendly interface. Our customers ask for something that is easy to use, easy to manipulate and doesn't require too much intervention. This is where SentinelOne scored big against CrowdStrike and Carbon Black.

This solution is easy to install.

This solution would be more attractive to customers if the price were lower.

The stability seems ok at this point because there is no negative feedback from the customers.

This solution is scalable and expandable with no issues.

We have support from both vendor and distributor, and up to now, it has been satisfactory. The response has been very good, which is something the customers really appreciate and is always considered a plus.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. The deployment is very easy and very fast, taking perhaps two or three hours, depending on the size of the project.

It is a centralized deployment.

A maximum of two people are required for the setup and maintenance.

The implementation of this project is a joint effort between our team and the vendor's technical team.

I have done POCs with this solution for two customers and there has been no negative feedback.

My advice for anybody considering this product is to do a POC and check to ensure it fits their environment. In some areas, this may be the best product to use, but in another environment, another product or another solution would be a better fit. It's always a matter of doing the POC and trying to get the most out of the product, depending on the environment.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I use it pretty extensively. All of my highest-tier clients use SingularityOne.

All of my business's machines use SentinelOne complete with Singularity and XDR, which ties into things like Azure AD and whatnot. It's really great. Although I don't get the 24x7 Managed Security Operations Center wonderfulness through it.

It is a well-designed product that does what it says it is going to do. It protects endpoints, finds anomalies, and remediates them based on the automation plans I've set up.

It is a really great product.

The most valuable feature is that it does what it says it will do. It fulfills its claims. It’s not really common for products to do that today.

In terms of improvement, the documentation could be better. I would also like to see SingularityOne compatibility with Huntress, and the tighter integration between them would bring more to the table.

I have been using it for three or four years.

I would give the product a ten out of ten. 

It's pretty good. The best thing is it has a secure shell command that you can use to get into any endpoint and do some jobs. That's a pretty cool feature. 

It's pretty much the same as similar typical solutions. It is a CrowdStrike, or SentinelOne, or Windows Defender. They do the same thing. 

The pricing is pretty good. 

It's probably not that top-notch like CrowdStrike or Microsoft Defender. However, it's okay, it's not bad. 

The only problem I have is they don't manually review the threat files. That's the only thing I'm concerned about.

The support needs improvement. There are some limitations. 

I've used the solution for less than six months. 

It is a very stable product. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. I'd rate it a nine out of ten. 

No matter what software you use, you need to do some fine-tuning.

The solution is scalable. You can pretty much deploy to anywhere.

In terms of if we need to send them some actual threat, they cannot manually verify it. That's the limitation of the company. However, for Microsoft, or Symantec, or CrowdStrike, you can actually submit a threat file, then they can manually review it. That's the only thing I've found so far with SentinelOne. The support is not that good. Obviously, probably eventually, they will get it in one year or two years' time; however, right now, it's not there.

Neutral

I've used CrowdStrike, Carbon Black, and Microsoft Defender as well. 

SentinelOne, CrowdStrike, and Carbon Black do the pretty much same thing. It all depends on the money.

The good thing about Microsoft and CrowdStrike is they can detect the device based on the traffic they're coming from. This is one of the advantages you have. With SentinelOne, this is where they're lacking. For example, for Windows Defender, if you're using your phone, you can figure out it's coming from your phone, or as long as it's coming to your enterprise network, you will know where it's coming from. This is one of the things I could not find in SentinelOne. You can only define it once you deploy it. However, without a proper deployment, you can't actually see it. For the other technologies, even though you don't deploy them, you can actually have a good understanding of the entire fleet and what's happening. For example, all emails are going to Office 365, so that's another way you get an excellent picture of the inventory assets. That's a very good NDM thing that you got it for free. With SentinelOne, they're not to that level yet.

The initial setup is easy. It's even simpler than, for example, Windows Defender. 

The maintenance is very low. It depends on how big the organization is. The false positive rate is very low. Obviously, it should be maintained by a team. Regardless, if it's Windows Defender, CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, or Symantec, it has to be built and looked after by a soft team.

For the functionality you get, the pricing is pretty good. I'd rate it four out of five in terms of affordability.

I was actually evaluating Windows Defender. I just want to check to see the selling points and the advantages of having Defender over Symantec products.

I didn't do a technical job; I just evaluated the product. I don't have a partnership with SentinelOne. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. They are pretty good overall. 

This is an anti-malware and threat management product. We are customers of SentinelOne and I'm a system engineer.

We chose SentinelOne because of the protection it offers against ransomware. It provides good security that gives peace of mind.

We sometimes have issues with the disc space and that's because of the anti-ransomware technology they use. The volume of shadow copies becomes too large and we have to manage that. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable product. 

The solution is scalable, we have around 500 users in the company. 

I have issued some tickets to technical support and they were very responsive. 

Positive

We use an in-house person along with a third-party consultant for implementation.

I believe that SentinelOne is quite an expensive solution. 

This is a good product, but it has some issues so I rate it eight out of 10. 

SentinelOne is for users wanting an enhanced level of endpoint security.

What I like about SentinelOne is that it sparks your curiosity. I also like its rollback feature.

The stability of SentinelOne should be improved.

I've been using SentinelOne for three years.

We're using SentinelOne through one of our partners, and we have had some stability issues with it due to Windows 10 features updates. It should be more stable.

SentinelOne is a scalable solution.

Technical support for SentinelOne is fine.

The initial setup for SentinelOne is straightforward. Setting up the solution doesn't take long, e.g. on a per-device basis, it would take just 30 seconds.

We did the implementation of this solution ourselves.

Our customers pay for monthly for the license of SentinelOne.

We're an MSP, so we deploy SentinelOne for customers, e.g. 70 to 80 endpoints.

We've had some stability issues with the solution, and that's definitely a concern. I'm still pushing forward with SentinelOne, because it's the only kind of option we have in this space.

In terms of recommending SentinelOne, I'd give it a six out of ten.

We have SentinelOne installed on all of our workstations and servers. It is set up with the maximum protection except that Active is in Alert Mode, and everything else is blocked.

The most valuable feature is that it just unintrusively works in the background to carry out the protection. You don't have to babysit it. Instead, it will alert if it sees something, you deal with it and carry on from there.

Periodically we have an application that does not work correctly when SentinelOne is installed, yet performs as expected when SentinelOne is removed. SentinelOne gives no clue as to the problem, so to diagnose what is happening can be difficult. To make it worse, the behavior is inconsistent. Two people in the office might have the application working correctly, but a third person using the same program will have a problem.

Nothing is displayed by the agent that is running on the workstations, but it would be helpful to have a mode available where we can see feedback as to what it is doing. We wouldn't want it running all the time because there would be more overhead, but it could be helpful for debugging or diagnosing problems.

I have been using SentinelOne for between six months and a year.

In terms of stability, it has been good so far.

It appears to be scalable.

The initial setup is very easy.

Our licensing fees are about $5 USD per endpoint, per month.

Overall, this is a good product and I recommend it. That said, there are always ways to make things better.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use the public cloud version.

We have a preference for their receptor. It's good at finding many EFC files. Normally, EFC files could have a virus, but we need to exclude some of them.

It corrects all of the EFC files with a virus. All the achievements, maximum EFC files. Many EFC files will be flagged as a virus. Some virus databases need to be updated. The model is good at finding many EFC files. The trouble is it needs to be updated. 

From the client-side, some scanning and other features can be enabled for scanning viruses better. If they want to scan for an individual reason other than viruses, such as scanning for legal files, they haven't been able to gather that from the client-side.

Some features could be more user-friendly. For instance, setting restrictions in the explorer for what level one must be to use it is not user-friendly. It is difficult to find what we're searching for.

The solution is stable.

Out of ten, I would give this solution 8.5 for scalability.

When we need partners, they support us well. There have been no issues with that.

It's okay. It's a better solution than other competitors.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.