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 product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"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."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"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."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Cylance is not a signature-based protection solution and instead works proactively using AI and ML models to patrol for malicious behavior."
"CylanceOPTICS is easy to use."
"It automatically blocks the threats, helping us investigate if they harm the environment."
"CylanceOPTICS is pretty stable."
"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."
"The initial setup was fairly straightforward. To get a large health care organization sorted, we had to create exemptions because some of the scripts and some of the automations were broken."
"It's pretty unintrusive"
"The solution has a high level of trust in the industry."
"Defender is stable. The performance is good."
"The detection features are valuable, as is the fact that it is easier to port these logs into Sentinel. That is also useful for us. It is more comprehensive."
"The fact that it's from Microsoft, you don't have many false positives, unlike products from other vendors might have."
"Its simplicity is the most valuable. It also has very good integration. We like it."
"There are a couple of features, such as isolating the devices or connecting the device and connecting live response."
"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."
"It's a Microsoft product; it's easier to deploy this product than other options."
"This solution definitely increases our security posture. When you are reviewing your existing fleet or endpoints and based on the configuration that you put out of your Defender for Endpoint, you then receive a security score from Microsoft. Depending on what rules you have configured, what policies you have deployed, and what attack surface reduction rules that you have set up and deployed, it is almost gamifying information security in the sense that you are always trying to achieve a higher score. The more hardening you perform on your endpoints, the better score you receive. This generally tends to give you a better peace of mind, but also makes you secure at the same time."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"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."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"The product's technical support is slow."
"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 initial setup process could be easy."
"The reporting is very weak and not very good at all."
"Our customers would like to see more automation with respect to how threats are handled once they have been detected."
"The technical support could be improved although it's probably better than you get with a lot of the other traditional antivirus solutions"
"The detection component is something that they have to work on."
"One minor issue that somebody mentioned was that they didn't like their management console."
"They can improve it on the online protection front since people nowadays are moving online and working from home."
"Microsoft Defender in the basic form is not very useful for managing the security environment. The free version is not capable of covering the needs of centralized management, EDR, and behavioral analysis. If you don't have the commercial version, you can't have centralized management and set up the policies and other things. Each client is a standalone installation, which is not useful for security in an enterprise model."
"I would like to have a dashboard that shows an overview of the results for the enterprise."
"It would be helpful if they offered video tutorial guides."
"I personally haven't experienced any pain points, but some of my coworkers feel that it isn't secure enough."
"Alerts need to be sent immediately because as it is now, you see some of them without delay and others arrive perhaps 30 minutes later, and it leaves important gaps in terms of information gathering."
"I would like to see the next generation of the tool improved to work with other operating systems, like Linux."
"In terms of improvements for their technical support, a focus on enhancing response times could be beneficial."
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, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and ESET Endpoint Protection Platform. 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.
