We performed a comparison between CylanceOPTICS and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. I would give it a close ten as possible because, like SentinelOne, I've seen incompatibility. Whereas Cylance, I've seen none."
"CylanceOPTICS is easy to use."
"Cylance is not a signature-based protection solution and instead works proactively using AI and ML models to patrol for malicious behavior."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to respond to zero-day and unknown threats."
"It automatically blocks the threats, helping us investigate if they harm the environment."
"It is a bit early in our evaluation process to give proper feedback, although so far, the overall feedback is good."
"The solution has a high level of trust in the industry."
"CylanceOPTICS is pretty stable."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint are the ease of use and it was available within the operating system."
"It is quite stable. We have not had any cases, i.e., viruses, that would require a reboot, etc. We have never had a situation where we needed to reinstall the tools as a result of the Defender application or a feature being corrupt."
"DFE organizational security posture has been a positive experience. We're a Microsoft house. It works. Once it's deployed and once it's configured, it works and our clients tend to be happy with it. I haven't really experienced anyone who has been so unsatisfied with the platform that they wanted to go a couple of different directions, that has never happened to me."
"Technical support is good."
"It's free. There is no additional cost. It's part of Windows."
"Defender for Endpoint is a robust solution that works well out-of-the-box."
"The most important and the most relevant features of Defender for Endpoint are the malware and ransomware protection."
"Coming from an organization where the EDR wasn't strong, it has always been a case of basically searching through the information you already have and looking for something. It was basically trying to find the needle in a haystack. What the Defender platform does is that it reduces the size of the haystack, and it'll say that the needle is over here. Minutes matter, and it certainly zeros you in on the events that are concerning. It also simplifies the effort of trying to get some kind of correlation of behaviors or actions you see in the environment and confirming if something is benign or a threat."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"The detection component is something that they have to work on."
"CylanceOPTICS could benefit from more granular control in the timeline-building process. Ideally, users would be able to drill deeper into the analysis rather than have the machine dictate the direction."
"The technical support could be improved although it's probably better than you get with a lot of the other traditional antivirus solutions"
"The tools are ineffective. It flags a lot of things. To give you an example, it detected Google Chrome and blocked the user's access to it. That it mistook for malicious, which turned out to be a false positive."
"The product's technical support is slow."
"The reporting is very weak and not very good at all."
"Too many false positives are reported."
"The product's initial setup process could be easy."
"Its price could be better."
"The time it takes to restore the application could be improved. It has a lot of dependencies. It's not like the Microsoft security that comes with the OS. Updating through the command prompt, most of the time, it takes some time to download some of these dependencies."
"Monitoring can always be better, onboarding can be a little bit faster, log collection could be easier, they could streamline the dashboard. They could maybe split it up into different workspaces and have the ability to segment groups a little bit more."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint could improve by adding more security features."
"Notifications are always popping up — I hate that."
"The end-user also cannot do some advanced actions on it. It's a little bit complicated for our end-user, so it needs to be simplified."
"If there were more template queries in the library, that would make it much easier. They could have basic things, like, "Where's the IP for this user?" or, "What file was downloaded from this user?" If there were more of those basic queries that would help."
"It can get a bit laggy sometimes. Other than that, we don't have any issues. They constantly tweak it and fix it up based on users' feedback. It has improved a lot over the past four years. Defender for Endpoint never really used to be a good endpoint security solution, but over the past couple of years, Microsoft has invested heavily in it. So, it has come a long way in all aspects of endpoint security. If they want to make it better, they should just continue investing in the current path of what they've been doing over the past couple of years."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
CylanceOPTICS is ranked 33rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 10 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 182 reviews. CylanceOPTICS is rated 7.6, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CylanceOPTICS writes "Enables the isolation and inoculation of infected machines, offering a practical solution for dealing with threats and preventing their spread within the environment". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". CylanceOPTICS is most compared with , whereas Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Trellix Endpoint Security and Fortinet FortiClient. See our CylanceOPTICS vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.