We compared CylancePROTECT and Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response based on our users reviews in five parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Based on the reviews, it can be concluded that CylancePROTECT offers easy setup and strong protection, which gives it an advantage over Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response. However, CylancePROTECT is criticized for its pricing, lack of control over agent installation, instability, and poor performance. On the other hand, Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response has comprehensive capabilities and is easy to use, which gives it an advantage. However, it is criticized for compatibility issues, complexity for entry-level users, lack of a centralized dashboard and reporting features, and inadequate technical support services. In summary, CylancePROTECT is more suitable for users who value straightforward setup and strong protection, while Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is a better choice for users who prioritize comprehensive capabilities and ease of use.
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"The stability is very good."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"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."
"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 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."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The initial setup was easy and straightforward."
"They do a very good job of providing multi-stage visualizations of malicious operations that immediately show all attack details across all devices and users. Since it is MalOp-centric model, you can see if there has been a similar operation across multiple machines. If it is the same thing appearing on multiple machines, you see all the machines and users affected in one screen."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"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."
"What I like most about Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is the support because the support is good. The solution is also easy to use, and it has a dashboard. Everything is good, and there's no problem with it."
"It gives all the information in a clear response."
"Immediately we can pick up the computers in the network if any malicious operation that is triggered."
"CylancePROTECT works on AI technology, is always up to date, and uses very few resources on your devices."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable features are script blocking and macros within Word documents for stopping unwanted applications from running in the background."
"Specifically for a Windows domain environment, the product can be customized and pushed via GPO or SCCM without issue."
"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 easy to deploy."
"It does a good job of protecting us."
"On the management side, we liked the way it displays things."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"The support needs improvement."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"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."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"There can be problems with the EDI."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"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."
"I feel that the product lacks reporting features and needs improvement."
"It should be more stable, and the sensor needs improvement in terms of connectivity."
"Compared to our previous endpoint, we have a lot more false positives and a lot more duplication of alerts. So we're chasing more alerts."
"They need to improve their technical support services."
"The integration with Microsoft solutions and Microsoft capabilities needs to be improved."
"I would like to see them fix the alerting system so that the endpoint reporting is a bit more streamlined."
"The product does not do a lot of reporting on what it is taking care of. Enhanced reporting would be a welcome improvement."
"The high price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required. The product's price should be more competitive."
"The management console needs a little maturity in how it presents data and allows the administrator to drill down or search across systems."
"The product must make the interface a little more user-friendly."
"The initial deployment was quite complicated."
"It is hard to manage."
"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."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 44th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 19 reviews while CylancePROTECT is ranked 23rd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 39 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while CylancePROTECT 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 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". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Darktrace, whereas CylancePROTECT is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. CylancePROTECT 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.