The customer may want many features, but they likely don't need all of them. Earlier, it made sense to offer various modules, as not all customers require every option. For example, if Google bundles its services into fewer packages—say, three instead of six or nine. It simplifies customer decisions and helps avoid future pricing uncertainty. From a commercial and technological perspective, these options are similar, with all three highly rated reports. However, Google has an advantage due to its extensive network infrastructure, which provides superior intelligence from its networks. Everyone is talking about AI and its applications. For instance, Microsoft's Copilot was highly praised and tested in large organizations, but the hype seems to have settled down a bit. On the other hand, Mandiant appears to be effective in triggering actions based on specific events. Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.
I would recommend this solution to other people especially when it comes to the monitoring feature. Overall, I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.
I'm an end-user. I'd recommend the solution to others. They're now part of Google. They're going to start with integration and have 360-degree integration with QRadar, where all of the grunt work and analysis will happen elsewhere, and the security protocols will be with Mandiant. Everything is threat intelligence to me. If a company is going to use it and that's all they're going to use, they need to make sure they have enough time to read the articles. That's the big thing about the advantage. All of the information is there. You've got to just gotta go get it. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.
Find out what your peers are saying about Mandiant, CrowdStrike, Microsoft and others in Extended Detection and Response (XDR). Updated: December 2024.
Extended Detection and Response (XDR) solutions designed to provide a more comprehensive and unified approach to threat detection, investigation, and response across diverse data sources.
The customer may want many features, but they likely don't need all of them. Earlier, it made sense to offer various modules, as not all customers require every option. For example, if Google bundles its services into fewer packages—say, three instead of six or nine. It simplifies customer decisions and helps avoid future pricing uncertainty. From a commercial and technological perspective, these options are similar, with all three highly rated reports. However, Google has an advantage due to its extensive network infrastructure, which provides superior intelligence from its networks. Everyone is talking about AI and its applications. For instance, Microsoft's Copilot was highly praised and tested in large organizations, but the hype seems to have settled down a bit. On the other hand, Mandiant appears to be effective in triggering actions based on specific events. Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.
I would recommend this solution to other people especially when it comes to the monitoring feature. Overall, I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.
I'm an end-user. I'd recommend the solution to others. They're now part of Google. They're going to start with integration and have 360-degree integration with QRadar, where all of the grunt work and analysis will happen elsewhere, and the security protocols will be with Mandiant. Everything is threat intelligence to me. If a company is going to use it and that's all they're going to use, they need to make sure they have enough time to read the articles. That's the big thing about the advantage. All of the information is there. You've got to just gotta go get it. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.