We compared CylancePROTECT and VMware Carbon Black Endpoint based on our users reviews in five parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: CylancePROTECT offers a quick and easy setup process, a user-friendly dashboard, and strong AI-based protection. However, users have raised concerns about its pricing, the user-friendliness of the dashboard, and the lack of control over agent installation. In contrast, VMware Carbon Black Endpoint provides continuous monitoring and threat detection, along with strong integration capabilities and reliable performance. However, there are areas where it can improve, such as enhancing client performance, improving the user interface, and delivering faster response times. Furthermore, CylancePROTECT's technical support is perceived as slow, while VMware Carbon Black Endpoint's support receives mixed reviews.
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"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"
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The stability is very good."
"It does a good job of protecting us."
"The solution is very quick at easily changing the levels of protection for each computer and the server."
"It handles situations that the other threat management tools wouldn't find. It has worked well covering the weaker sides of the other products that we're integrating."
"The solution is stable."
"Even if an endpoint loses connection to the Internet, I know that endpoint is protected against 99.99% of the threats in the wild today."
"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 deployment of updates is easy."
"The initial setup of CylancePROTECT is very easy."
"The visibility provided has been great."
"The tool is pretty stable."
"I rate Carbon Black CB Defense an eight out of ten for the ease of its initial setup."
"Carbon Black Cb Defense has a nice component called Alert Triage. It contains full details of the process execution "kill chain" and "go live" for immediate remediation."
"What I like the most about it is the dynamic grouping, where you get to group endpoints based on setup criteria. That's pretty cool. I like the simplified policy management and simplified white-listing process."
"The product's most valuable feature is its ability to be fully integrated with the VMware environment."
"You can deploy it through the cloud so that even if your stuff is outside of your controlled environment, you are still under control, based on the policies you create. The policies are controlled through the cloud. For example, if I don't allow anyone to do a certain activity or to install a particular app, and a consultant or a partner who is not part of our environment is doing so, it will stop them as well."
"It is a very complete platform."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"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."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The solution is not stable."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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 solution is not user-friendly."
"They could improve on the false positives, reporting and whitelisting features."
"The solution needs better dashboards that are easier to use."
"We would like to see secure integration and multi-factor authentication to be able to access the administration dashboard."
"Having worked with SentinelOne, Cylance is good, however, it probably needs to add a feature similar to SentinelOne's rollback functionality. With this feature, if you get infected, with a click, you can go back to the pre-infection state. If Cylance could add this functionality to their offering as well, that would be ideal."
"An area for improvement in CylancePROTECT is its pricing, as it's a bit costly."
"CylancePROTECT's dashboard could be more user-friendly."
"The AI of CylancePROTECT has room for improvement. I'm on a trial license of SentinelOne, and its AI is much better than what's on CylancePROTECT."
"It should provide more details about the events that they have detected."
"There's some disparity between the on-premise and the cloud type of application."
"This solution works well but needs lots of tuning and optimization."
"The application control can be improved. It should also have an automatic update of the agents."
"The UI interface needs improvement. The management needs further work in future versions."
"The local technical support is very poor, but the support from headquarters is very nice."
"In the next release, it would help if we can get better control over containers."
"There is room for improvement in the support and service team."
"This product should be cheaper."
CylancePROTECT is ranked 23rd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 41 reviews while VMware Carbon Black Endpoint is ranked 16th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 62 reviews. CylancePROTECT is rated 8.0, while VMware Carbon Black Endpoint is rated 8.0. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware Carbon Black Endpoint writes "Centralization via the cloud allows us to protect and control people working from home". CylancePROTECT is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, whereas VMware Carbon Black Endpoint is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trend Micro Deep Security, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager. See our CylancePROTECT vs. VMware Carbon Black Endpoint 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.