We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and Digital Guardian 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."Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"This is stable and scalable."
"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."
"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"
"The stability is very good."
"The dashboard is very good and you can consider it as an interactive UI."
"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."
"It gives all the information in a clear response."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"I haven't had any issues with the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The initial setup process is 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."
"For me, the technical support is good."
"It has been scalable."
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"Some of the features that are highly appreciated are its robust data loss prevention capabilities, flexible deployment options, and the ability to monitor data transfer across multiple vectors."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"The feature we call desktop recording is the most valuable aspect of the solution. Not only can we collect data from the user's usage, but we also capture his screenshots when he is trying to steal the data."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"The solution is not stable."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"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"
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"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."
"There can be problems with the EDI."
"They need to improve their technical support services."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"I feel that the product lacks reporting features and needs improvement."
"While the product is very good, there are still some areas for improvement. The initial triage area could be a bit simpler. They get into the weeds real fast; it gets very detailed very fast. I am still looking for an easier triage layer on top with the ability to dig deeper."
"Cybereason does not have sandbox functionality."
"The product's reporting isn't great."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"Technical support could be better."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"When considering potential areas for improvement, it may be beneficial for Digital Guardian to optimize its processes and reduce the computational demands on the system, particularly with regard to high CPU usage. Although Digital Guardian offers numerous benefits, it can consume a substantial amount of RAM and CPU power."
"If the client uses Windows 10 or 11 and Microsoft updates the operating system's version, Digital Guardian must update their product to match compatibility."
"Digital Guardian is an excellent solution but our experience with the partner has been the most horrible experience we have ever had with any partner."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 36th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 19 reviews while Digital Guardian is ranked 29th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 11 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while Digital Guardian is rated 7.4. 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 Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Darktrace, whereas Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, CrowdStrike Falcon and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. Digital Guardian 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.
