We compared Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Deep Instinct Prevention Platform based on users' reviews in six categories. We reviewed all of the data and you can find the conclusion below.
Features: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint excels in file protection, encryption, and ransomware defense. It integrates seamlessly with other Microsoft security products. Users appreciate its user-friendly interface and scalability. Users were impressed by Deep Instinct’s AI-driven approach and ability to detect and prevent zero-day malware. They also appreciate its proactive defense mechanisms.
Room for Improvement: Users say Microsoft Defender for Endpoint should improve its central console and auto-recovery feature. Users also requested better reporting capabilities and integration with third-party platforms. Deep Instinct Prevention Platform could improve its documentation, forensic capabilities, and logging system. Users say Deep Instinct’s AI model could be more transparent, and the solution could be better adapted to multi-tenant use cases.
Service and Support: Microsoft customer service garnered mixed feedback. Some praised the fast response times and expertise of the support engineers, while others were dissatisfied with slow replies and a lack of coordination among the support teams. Users praised Deep Instinct's customer service and support for their swift response and overall helpfulness.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint's setup is straightforward, especially when it’s preloaded on Windows 10. While it can be more complex for larger organizations, it is generally considered simple, particularly for smaller companies or those familiar with Microsoft environments. Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is somewhat complex to set up, requiring multiple steps and some training. The total deployment time may take months.
Pricing: Reviewers say Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is fairly priced, noting that it is typically included for free with Windows or Microsoft Office 365 subscriptions. However, some users believe that Microsoft's pricing could be more affordable, and others noted that their licensing models can be complex. Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is cheaper than many competing solutions, and support is included with the basic license.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint delivers cost savings, enhanced efficiency, and heightened threat management. Deep Instinct Prevention Platform’s noteworthy benefits include time savings, reduced false positives, and effective prevention against unknown threats.
Comparison Results: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint offers sophisticated protection against ransomware, easy deployment, and smooth integration with Microsoft solutions. However, Microsoft’s customer support has received middling reviews, and users would like better compatibility with third-party solutions. Deep Instinct Prevention Platform offers a unique perspective on cybersecurity, with a focus on behavioral analysis and deep learning-based prevention. It also requires enhancements in its interface, administration, and logging system.
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"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."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"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."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"I like the dashboard. It looks very simple."
"The most important thing is that it is for prevention. It prevents attacks of any type of malware. Normally, what we've seen in other products is that they are not for prevention. They isolate a possible threat that they don't understand or know about, and then they check it with our database to see if it needs any correction or elimination. This means that the threat is already inside a customer's base, whereas Deep Instinct prevents a threat from getting in. Prevention is basically done by an agent in each installation, PCU, or product. An agent has its own intelligence to be able to detect if it should stop a threat or not. It has been taught. It is like a brain that has been taught to react according to any possible threat. Deep Instinct is very light. It doesn't take too much CPU attention or memory. It doesn't slow down the performance. You don't really realize any change in the performance, which makes it very different from other solutions. They are usually heavy for the users."
"The detection rate is very high. In all the testing with around 20 partners in different environments, quite a lot of them had installed with other anti-malware applications, like Sophos. This software can co-exist with those applications in the same machine. This is impressive."
"The CPU consumption is low compared to what I have been using in my current environment, which is Sophos. The footprint is a lot smaller, about a quarter of Sophos. It is very small."
"It's just a single agent that has everything in it... With the EDR solutions, you have to install it, then you have another service history installed, and you have behavioral analytics, etc. With this, everything is in a single small "box," a small agent that has pretty much got everything."
"When we were looking at Carbon Black and Sophos, the prevention pieces weren't as strong when compared to DI, which is why we decided to go with DI... I would rather have a product that does the prevention up front and saves me the effort of having to wipe someone's workstation."
"It has given us a more structured approach for detecting and preventing threats. It has machine learning-based detection and prevention. Their engines, in even older versions, are able to pick these viruses and malware. They have posted a lot of use cases online for detecting different viruses and malware that have been out for many years."
"Instead of having features like rollback and after-event actionable stuff, the whole premise and the context of the solution is to actually prevent these malicious attacks from happening to begin with.... The ability to prevent threats is the most appealing aspect. It absolutely, 100 percent helps with real-time prevention of unknown malware. That's the strength of the product."
"Easy to understand and easy to set up endpoint security solution. It's a multifeatured product with web content filtering and automated investigation features. It also has a fantastic vulnerability management dashboard."
"One of the valuable features of the solution is the small updates that keep my machine relatively clean from any infections."
"We had Norton Antivirus before, and with Norton, we didn't have a way to centrally manage a lot of features. Defender allowed us to deploy it from our Office 365 admin console. That is probably the biggest thing that made us go with Defender."
"File protection is the most valuable feature. Antivirus security on the Level OS, Microsoft Defender, and Microsoft Guard for 2019."
"Provides good vulnerability assessment."
"I am using it for very simple purposes. It is perfect and quite effective. I have been using it for a while, and I have never had any virus infection, data leak, or other security breaches. It works fine for standalone purposes. If you log on to OneDrive, it has ransomware protection."
"We have very good visibility on our endpoints. The level of information it throws back is helpful."
"Defender provides useful alerts and groups them. It sends an alert to your portal if it detects any malicious activity, and you can group multiple alerts to form an incident."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"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."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"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 solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"I think it's probably the administration, especially the administration platform, which could be improved in the solution. It's clunky and hard to navigate, especially for inexperienced technicians."
"The interface on the endpoint could be a little more descriptive and more valuable. It doesn't always tell you the data you need to see. Improvement there would be very helpful."
"When things get done automatically, I would appreciate more logging of what's happening in the background... we should be able to backtrack from the log that gets uploaded to our cloud instance and see, forensically, what the root cause was."
"Its support for Linux and Unix operating systems can be improved. Currently, they cover macOS and Windows, but they don't cover Linux and some of the Unix products. Pricing is also an issue. Its pricing is not as aggressive as it could be, and its price makes it difficult to sell. Customers feel that they can get an antivirus for a lower price, even though it is not a similar product. It is technically different. Their SLAs can be better. They have to give you 24/7 support, but their SLAs are not very good. They should be better documented, and the offerings should also be a little bit better. What happens is that the SLAs end up in the hands of the intermediary, seller, or the local partner of Deep Instinct in a country. The customers want very fast SLAs in a very short time, but Deep Instinct doesn't give them at the same speed. Having said that, SLAs are important when you have a lot of issues, but this product doesn't have too many issues, so it is not a big concern. However, for a customer who doesn't know the product, it could be a concern."
"I would love to see a really exceptional, outstanding level of reporting. I know that's like asking for a unicorn to leap out of the sky with any of these products... When everything works, clients began to wonder: "Everything's fine. Why do we need you?" That's where the reporting capabilities would allow us to really demonstrate: "Hey, here's what's actually going on, Mr. Customer.""
"The Deep Instinct client stops working when you have two servers and you add high availability or Windows Failover Cluster mode. It doesn't work in a clustered mode. I haven't yet had time to go back and talk with their support and get it fixed. It would be good if they can make the installation independent of an actual user. Currently, its installation is dependent on the actual user being logged in. For example, a computer has to be logged in for the installation to happen. If it is not logged in, then on the cloud platform, it is going to show that the client is offline. On the management side of the cloud platform, we would like to have the administrators segregated by logical entities. We have told them that on their cloud management platform, we would like to be able to segregate clients into different logical entities or organizations so that the administrators are able to manage only those entities that are within their designated organization."
"Reporting on incidents needs improvement."
"If they can bring some additional, complementary solutions, like network scanning and the like, that will help. If they had some sort of a firewall which could help detect DDoS attacks and other things, it would be an improvement"
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can use more advertising to promote their features."
"We encountered some misbehavior between Microsoft Office Suite and Defender. We had issues of old macros being blocked and some stuff going around the usage of Win32 APIs. There is some improvement between the Office products and Defender, and there is a bunch of stuff that you can configure in your antivirus solutions, but you have several baselines, such as security baselines for Edge, security baselines for Defender, and security baselines for MDM. You have configuration profiles as well. So, there a lot of parts where we can configure our antivirus solution, and we're getting conflicting configurations. This is the major part with which we're struggling in this solution. We are having calls and calls with Microsoft for getting rid of all configuration conflicts that we have. That's really the part that needs to be improved."
"I want Microsoft Defender to have the ability to deal with some issues automatically, so I don't need to address that issue manually."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is secure but when it comes to security all solutions could improve security."
"Threat intelligence has the potential for improvement, particularly by integrating more sources."
"Updates are not coming out of preview quickly enough and it is holding back on the development of the product."
"The second major area for improvement involves enhanced capabilities for different operating systems or platforms. That is, even though we have coverage for different operating systems or platforms such as Linux, we don't get all of the controls and enhanced capabilities that are available with Windows devices."
"Its price could be better."
More Deep Instinct Prevention Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is ranked 25th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 18 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 182 reviews. Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Deep Instinct Prevention Platform writes "Bolsters prevention with great detection and response capabilities". 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". Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CylancePROTECT, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Intercept X Endpoint, whereas Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Microsoft Intune. See our Deep Instinct Prevention Platform vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Anti-Malware Tools 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.