What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SentinelOne?

We do not encounter a lot of issues with the pricing of SentinelOne. The pricing is reasonable. The solution offers a standard licensing fee.

The licensing is handled by another team. I can't speak to the exact cost of the product.

The pricing is comparable with other vendors but some customers find it a bit costly. There is a bit of pricing flexibility with the solution, but initial quotes can surprise customers. I rate pricing a six out of ten.

The price of SentinelOne is on the higher side compared to other solutions, such as Symantec.

Licensing is part of the procurement team. I can't speak to the exact cost of the product.

SentinelOne's pricing could be lower.

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

I cannot speak to the exact pricing. That said, it's very reasonable. I'd rate it five out of five in terms of affordability. There are cheaper options; however, it is quite affordable. We pay a yearly licensing fee.

I believe that SentinelOne is quite an expensive solution.

The cost is a bit high. It's around $8 per client per month.

I rate the price of SentinelOne a ten out of ten, meaning it is the best price in the market. This is because SentinelOne has a nominal cost. For example, if CrowdStrike costs $1000, SentinelOne provides the same features for about $7 to $8.

Its price is per endpoint per year. One of the features of its licensing is that it is a multi-tenanted solution. From an MSSP point of view, if I want to have several different virtual clouds of customers, it is supported natively, which is not the case with, for example, Microsoft Defender. Another nice thing about it is that you can buy one license if you want to. Some vendors insist that you buy 50 or 100, whereas here, you can just buy one. The Singularity product has three versions: Singularity Core, Singularity Control, and Singularity Complete. The Singularity Complete one is really what I consider an enterprise rate solution. The middle one, Control, is more than adequate. In terms of price, it works out very similar to what you would pay for Kaspersky or for any other solution. The licensing per endpoint, per year, and per version is progressively more expensive for the Core, Control, and Complete versions. The interesting thing is that it is possible to upgrade across the versions without a major change. If a customer buys the most basic installation and would like some of the features out of the middle, it is possible.

We pay to license every year. However, I’m not sure of the pricing. They might cost $100 each. It’s reasonably priced. I’d rate it four out of five in terms of affordability.

This solution is less expensive than its competitors. You might need to buy additional space depending on how much they are willing to provide. I would rate the pricing a five out of five.

The pricing of SentinelOne is less than McAfee.

The pricing of the solution seems reasonable, we got a discount but it still seems reasonable. The licensing cost is $3 to $4 per endpoint and can be paid monthly or yearly, with the price changing according to commitment.

At this time it is only a trial. After the trial period, I am going to purchase two licenses from SentinelOne. To make comparisons too and continue investigating both products.

SentinelOne isn't cheap, but it's less expensive than CrowdStrike It's priced competitively. There are no add-ons. We have a Singularity Complete license, which includes everything we need for endpoint protection.

Our customers pay for monthly for the license of SentinelOne.

Its price can be lower because I'm seeing competition from another vendor who beats it on commercials.

In the past, we had to purchase licenses in advance, so if we hit our license limit, we could not expand until we got a signed agreement in place with the sales rep after the back-and-forth. That meant if a client had ransomware and they had 200 agents, we couldn't deploy right away if we were up against our limit. So we always had that balancing act of figuring out if we were close to our limit and whether we needed to buy more licenses? We ended up paying for licenses we didn't need because we had to buy them in packages of 100. We now pay based on usage. They do an audit once a quarter and calculate any overages. We pay a set amount quarterly, based on our licenses in use, and then they true-up the figure. Right now we have 12,800 agents with SentinelOne on them. We charge our clients monthly, so it would be really difficult for us to write a check to SentinelOne, in advance, for a full year's worth, at that level. It's been great for us to have the quarterly payments.

The pricing is very reasonable. Unfortunately, because it's a cloud-based product, it has a minimum count for licensing, but other than that, I've found their pricing to be incredibly reasonable and competitive with tools that are very similar. Considering the invaluable nature of SentinelOne's autonomous behavior, I don't believe anyone else can measure up to that. That makes it an incredible bargain when compared to the cost of an incident for any company.

If you are an end-user you should procure the service through a Managed Cyber Security Systems Provider.

The licensing is comparable to other solutions in the market. The pricing is competitive. We subscribe to the Managed Detection and Response (MDR) service called Vigilance, which is like an extension of our SOC. Vigilance's services help us with mitigating and responding to any suspicious, malicious threats that SentinelOne detects. Vigilance takes care of those. We also pay for the support. The endpoint license and support are part of the base package, but we bought the extended package of Vigilance Managed Detection and Response (MDR) services.

The pricing is very fair for the solution they provide. Aside from the standard licensing fee, the only other costs are for the hardware, because we use Hyper-V on-premises.

We have got very competitive price from SentinelOne and its meeting our expectations.

The price is reasonable in terms of what the product offers. SentinelOne is more affordable than some competing products, and it's not overly expensive for what you're getting.

We are on a subscription model by choice. Therefore, we are paying a premium for the flexibility. We would have huge cost savings if we committed to a three-year buy-in. So, it's more expensive than the other solutions that we were looking at, but we have the flexibility of a subscription model. I think the pricing is fair. For example, if we had a three-year tie-in SentinelOne versus Cylance or one of the others, there is not that much difference in pricing. There might be a few euro or dollars here and there, but it's negligible.

There are no fees other than their standard licensing fees.

The pricing level for this service and application was very interesting for us. I don't know exactly what the price was, but apparently it was a big surprise that the SOC was also included in our pricing model. The Deep Visibility feature practically double the price. Because we have a SOC, we rely on them to have insights about all the threats, so we are not monitoring our environment ourselves. It is mostly done by the SentinelOne SOC. That is the reason why we decided not to go for this feature.

I got a really good deal so I'm very happy with the pricing.

They were very good about finding a price that could work for us. I'm not the bean counter, so I don't know exactly what the end cost was, but I do know that we got them at a time of the most financial stress we had been under and they found a way to make it work for us. It was a three-year contract and everyone fully expected the price to take a significant jump because the capabilities of the solution had been significantly increased with no additional costs. We expected it to maybe even be priced out and they did not. It went up a slight bit, which you can expect, but they worked with us. We were one of the first companies to go with them here, in Ohio. They have a lot of respect for their loyal customers. They worked with us and allowed us to keep this high-level product and actually add more licenses to it without breaking our bank. In terms of additional costs, they've added something called Ranger and another layer of deep visibility. The base console doesn't come with that. Ranger is threat hunting and we were able to use the Ranger and the visibility, which is the threat hunting and of course the deep visibility and more in-depth storyline. We were able to use that, but we hardly ever needed that for our environment and the way we use the product. Because of that, we did not opt to have those in our current console. We do more threat response than hunting. We put the latest and greatest agent out there and it's backed by this particular product but we just simply don't have the personnel to do it like we used to. That's the one thing we're missing. If you were to add the deep visibility and the threat hunting capability onto it, it would be a little bit more. I don't think it's that much of a significant cost, but I don't know the end results of the prices. Because we didn't make use of those two functionalities, they just cut it out.

It was cheaper than McAfee, which was a way to convince management to go with the solution.

You have to look at the kinds of problems you can end up with and the fact that you want security against them, and then SentinelOne is not expensive. That's the way I would sell it. If you avoid having one outbreak a year, just one, then SentinelOne is worth the money. When you have that one outbreak and it spreads across your complete network, it means days of work are gone. For a complete environment like ours, with 300-plus users, it would be very expensive.

The solution's price/performance ratio is reasonable. In addition to the standard licensing fees there is, of course, the SOC service fee.

Pricing is a bit of a pain point. That's where we have not been able to convince all of our customers to use SentinelOne. The pricing is still on the higher side. It's almost double the price, if not more, of a normal antivirus, such as NOD32, Kaspersky, or Symantec. I understand that these are not similar products, but for a customer who has a certain amount of money to pay for an antivirus, they can only spend so much. That's where it becomes hard to convince them to pay double the price for endpoint security. That is the only feature of this product which causes us to step back and not be able to deploy it for absolutely every customer we have. We would love to, but obviously if the customer doesn't have the budget to pay for it, there is not much we can do. If they can somehow bring the prices down, that would massively help in bringing this to a lot more customers.

There are actually three versions of this product: the user version, professional, and professional plus. If analysts need to see something, like what the users are doing, what processes are running, we can go to the console and see. The traditional version only shows when incidents happen. I think the next time we renew, we'd go with the lesser version because it shows enough information. There aren't additional costs to the standard licensing.

If you're looking for low count (even one) SentinelOne agents without an annual subscription commitment - Contact me at CyberSec@global.co.za. 

The cost of the solution varies and depends on your relationship with the supplier. My cost is USD $6 per end point. I don't have additional costs on top of that.

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

The costs are really rather minimal for what you receive with the product. No real advisement here. The larger count you have, the deeper discount you will receive in your contract.

The per-seat cost is low, but you have to commit to a certain number of licenses for a year.

The pricing is rather elevated. However, the solution is the most transparent for the uses I have ever encountered as well as being normally very informative and accurate for our engineers.