We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and Webroot Business Endpoint Protection 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."The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"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."
"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 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."
"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."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"For me, the technical support is good."
"I haven't observed any of the instabilities in the solution. It is a stable solution."
"Speed"
"Auto-Remediation"
"Its ease of installation is valuable. It has been a low-resource tool and the continuous updates in the past have made it attractive from the standpoint of the trust level on the protection."
"Doesn't consume resources or affect the computer performance at all."
"The solution has many features. It is very easy to define and set the policies based on the user groups, it does not take up a lot of resources in operation, and has provided us with a good track record of protection."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It took five minutes. I installed the solution myself."
"We've not had any issues with scalability. If an organization needs to expand, they can do so quite easily."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"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."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"I feel that the product lacks reporting features and needs improvement."
"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."
"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."
"The integration with Microsoft solutions and Microsoft capabilities needs to be improved."
"They need to improve their technical support services."
"The product's reporting isn't great."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"There can be problems with the EDI."
"It would be great if there was a feature which would allow you to scan an individual file on an endpoint user's computer."
"One of the biggest pain points is that it's not really ransomware-oriented. They will be able to catch some, but that's where Sentinel One is a better player compared to Webroot."
"Usually, when it comes to reliability, McAfee and Norton are at 99 percent. Webroot's percentage is lower. It is 94% reliable in terms of what it catches, but you're trading that percentage for customer satisfaction because your computer isn't being constantly told that it just blocked something, or it just did something."
"It needs to improve the problems with the faster connection, and have a huge reduction in false positives."
"The solution could improve by providing better ransomware protection."
"We need to know more details about how the virus interacted with the computer."
"It would be nice if it had a feature for automatically generating reports on the client end for device status, security status and backup information."
"Unified threat management (UTM) integration."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Webroot Business Endpoint Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 44th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 19 reviews while Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is ranked 34th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 30 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is rated 8.2. 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 Webroot Business Endpoint Protection writes "Lightweight and not hard to set up however, does not offer good reporting". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Darktrace, whereas Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Huntress, HP Wolf Security and Cynet. See our Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. Webroot Business Endpoint Protection 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.
