We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The stability is very good."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"For me, the technical support is good."
"The solution is efficient."
"Cybereason's threat hunting and investigation are the most valuable features. Threat hunting is a user-friendly feature that keeps you safe. Investigation offers an added value that I haven't seen with other EDR services. It allows you to find specific policy problems within your environment."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"Cybereason absolutely enables us to mitigate and isolate on the fly. Our managed detection response telemetry has dropped dramatically since we began using it. It's very top-of-mind. We were running some tabletop exercises and none of the detections were getting triggered by the managed security services provider. So we needed to find a solution that would trigger high-fidelity alerts. That was Cybereason and it dramatically changed our landscape from the detection and response perspective."
"Their EDR solution, the ability to mitigate issues through their command line, is probably the best feature that we've had. We use that all the time. It's very useful for doing investigations."
"We didn't have the visibility that we now have. It has increased our visibility by a lot. So, we put a lot more time into really looking at our environment and what is happening throughout our different networks. It has increased our visibility by around fivefold."
"The product is fairly technologically advanced and near the top of the market right now."
"The signature update is done securely."
"The tool's interface is good."
"We're more familiar with Kaspersky's interface, and we find it more user-friendly. It also has more features than others, like with BitDefender and Mirco. The price is better, too."
"I like the security that this solution provides."
"The advice I would give someone implementing this solution is that the management of the solution is very easy. You don't need a lot of people to manage the solution."
"Some of the most valuable features are the security and the stability, which are great. There are some imperfections, but everything is fine. In general, I think it's one of the best solutions."
"The policies are easy to make and controlled by the Kaspersky Administrative Security Center, which comes at no additional costs."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"Ad hoc higher-level reporting to senior management can be improved or can be implemented. That's definitely an area of improvement that they need to focus on."
"There can be problems with the EDI."
"Reporting could be a bit more granular so that we had the ability to check regions and countries. I just noticed that, for instance, if I look at our servers, it's either "contained" or it's "not contained". I don't have the option, for instance, to look at countries. It only allows me to look at users as one big group."
"The deployment on individual endpoints is more geared toward larger organizations. It might prove to be a bit too complicated for a smaller organization. You need to know what you're doing when you're deploying the sensor."
"It initially took some time to deploy."
"They need to improve their technical support services."
"It should be more stable, and the sensor needs improvement in terms of connectivity."
"I feel that the product lacks reporting features and needs improvement."
"They can improve the zero-day exploit to be more effective."
"I've had some problems with the web interface. For example, when I was running a trace, it's difficult to find this function, but I can see it when I go on the server. So, if I want to implement the EDR functions on the web interface, it's very difficult because the command button or the link doesn't appear."
"The GUI of the product is too basic, making it an area where improvements are required."
"The performance is not very good."
"The application running speed consumes that of RAM, so performance speed is an issue."
"We are having some troubles because some American companies we work with don't want to work with Kaspersky."
"I would like to see better-enhanced features, such as protection against ransomware and different types of malicious malware."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business’s interface could be easier to understand when displaying the activities during configuration processes."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 43rd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 19 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 111 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response writes "It has helped us become more knowledgeable about our environment and aware of threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Darktrace, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Trend Vision One Endpoint Security. See our Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.