We compared CylancePROTECT and Intercept X Endpoint (Sophos) based on our users reviews in five parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: CylancePROTECT and Sophos' Intercept X Endpoint are both endpoint security solutions that provide advanced technology and protection against threats. CylancePROTECT is appreciated for its simple deployment and implementation, accurate threat detection, and user-friendly dashboard. However, it is considered expensive and some have concerns about the quality of support. On the other hand, Intercept X Endpoint offers multi-platform capability, centralized management, and 24/7 monitoring. It also has fair pricing and helpful technical support. Suggestions for improvements include installation speed, performance impact, and pricing. In summary, CylancePROTECT prioritizes technological advancements while Intercept X Endpoint focuses on multi-platform capability and effective threat management.
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Two or three years ago when the WannaCry virus struck, the people that were on Cylance were the ones that weren't affected."
"Centralized dashboard online which can be used for managing a huge product."
"The most valuable features are script blocking and macros within Word documents for stopping unwanted applications from running in the background."
"It handles situations that the other threat management tools wouldn't find. It has worked well covering the weaker sides of the other products that we're integrating."
"The non-daily requirement to update signatures is the most valuable feature. From a functional point of view, it is pretty spot on. For instance, we compared an algorithm from five years ago to today's algorithm, and it was 98% accurate. It has the ability to detect and mitigate. In the industrial environment that we work in, there's what we call OT versus IT. You are IT Central, but this is OT. Generally, we don't have the same level of skillset as IT individuals or IT professionals have. This particular product doesn't require you to be a computer scientist to be able to understand its proprietary algorithm and to be able to deploy, use, and work within it. It integrates well with a robust SIEM or SOAR solution, and it plays nice with others. We use other detection solutions like CyberX or site provision with Cisco, and it plays nice. That's one of the things we really liked about it."
"The solution is pretty easy to scale."
"CylancePROTECT is very stable - we've had no issues with performance and no errors or bugs."
"We are quite security-focused. Blackberry Protect as an endpoint solution for our service really delivers what we are expecting."
"The most valuable feature is the anti-ransomware capability. It's been helpful because we have been seeing a lot of information around what the ransomware hit."
"It is stable."
"Since it's cloud-managed, the solution is easy to administer, especially if the person using it is in a different geophysical location."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"The updates and a lot of the day-to-day fiddling that you would have to do with it, can all be done from the cloud so it's easy to manage, and very easy to administer."
"Technical support is responsive and adept."
"The solution is overall quite good, the services are performing well. It is very good for those who are using standard PC configurations. It does not block their system up by taking up a lot of resources."
"The solution protects us."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"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"
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"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."
"They could improve on the false positives, reporting and whitelisting features."
"The OPTICS component could be made more user-friendly with respect to giving people more information."
"Reporting is an area with shortcomings in CylancePROTECT that needs to be improved."
"I would like to see a better UI in terms of sifting through more specific data and providing analytics. A little bit more would be nice."
"Work on the math model. We are catching a lot of false positives, which gets to be a pain at the start of a deployment."
"The product must make the interface a little more user-friendly."
"The price for this EPP platform is expensive and could be improved."
"It was not effective. There were a lot of false positives, even when we use Adobe, and everybody uses Adobe, which is not a threat."
"The security is good but the feature set is limited."
"It should offer better security updates."
"The initial setup can be difficult if you don't come in with at least some knowledge about the product."
"It consumes a lot of resources, and something needs to be done for that."
"We had some initial problems with our deployment, and they were more around uninstalling Sophos Basic and installing Sophos Intercept X. We had some challenges with some of the uninstallation scripts. They can improve the deployment of Sophos Intercept X when there is already an existing Sophos version. They can also provide more information in the form of best practices and lessons learned from previous findings. A knowledge base with this type of information would be helpful."
"The pricing could be a bit lower to match the normal retail pricing."
"The EDR could be improved, and perhaps the User Interface."
"We would like to deploy across a variety of machines simultaneously through the network."
CylancePROTECT is ranked 23rd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 41 reviews while Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 101 reviews. CylancePROTECT is rated 8.0, while Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of CylancePROTECT writes "Ensures advanced AI-driven threat detection to provide robust endpoint security, effectively preventing both known and unknown threats with minimal impact on system performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". CylancePROTECT is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Endpoint Security, whereas Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Seqrite Endpoint Security. See our CylancePROTECT vs. Intercept X Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.