We performed a comparison between Digital Guardian and Fortinet FortiEDR 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."There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"It has been scalable."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"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."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"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 price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The stability is very good."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"There are a lot of issues with the current version of the Endpoint agent. It's not stable, it's resource-consuming, and there are some performance issues. If they could improve the stability of the agent it would be great."
"The room for improvement with Digital Guardian is that it will be better with the Linux agent because it is the only DLP solution for Linux workstations. It still needs to upgrade the agents to the latest version for the Linux kernel."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"It would be helpful if there was an on-premise version of the solution for companies that cannot use the cloud, such as government sectors."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"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."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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."
"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."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
Digital Guardian is ranked 29th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 11 reviews while Fortinet FortiEDR is ranked 13th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 32 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while Fortinet FortiEDR is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiEDR writes "A proactive solution that works as a proactive upgrade from a firewall". 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, whereas Fortinet FortiEDR is most compared with Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Digital Guardian vs. Fortinet FortiEDR 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.