We compared Fortinet FortiEDR and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Fortinet FortiEDR requires improvements in user interface, setup process, documentation, and reporting capabilities. Users appreciate its threat detection capabilities and customer service. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint features comprehensive threat protection, real-time monitoring, and efficient incident response. Users praise its customer service, pricing, and effectiveness in threat detection but suggest some areas for improvement. Overall, Fortinet FortiEDR focuses on enhancements in usability and reporting, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint emphasizes comprehensive threat protection and real-time monitoring.
Features: Fortinet FortiEDR is praised for its advanced threat detection, seamless integration, and user-friendly interface. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint excels in comprehensive threat protection, real-time monitoring, and effective incident response capabilities.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for Fortinet FortiEDR is reported to be straightforward and hassle-free, requiring minimal effort. Customers also appreciate the flexibility of licensing options that allow them to choose the most suitable model. Similarly, with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, users found the pricing reasonable, setup process straightforward, and licensing options flexible for different organizational needs., Fortinet FortiEDR offers a positive ROI based on user feedback. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint also has a positive ROI, with users praising its performance, effectiveness, and real-time insights.
Room for Improvement: Fortinet FortiEDR could benefit from improvements in user interface, ease of use, setup process, documentation, training resources, reporting capabilities, and dashboards. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has areas for enhancement according to user feedback.
Deployment and customer support: Based on user reviews, the implementation duration for Fortinet FortiEDR varies, with some users taking three months for deployment and a week for setup. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint also has varying reviews, with some users taking three months for deployment and a week for setup. It is important to consider the context in which these timeframes are mentioned., Customers have reported positive experiences with the customer service of both Fortinet FortiEDR and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. However, Fortinet is praised for its excellent assistance and guidance, while Microsoft is commended for the helpfulness, efficiency, and promptness of their support team.
The summary above is based on 106 interviews we conducted recently with Fortinet FortiEDR and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"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's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The stability is very good."
"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."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"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."
"Defender is stable, I haven't had any problems with viruses when using it, and it's easy to update."
"Within its class I think, it has a high and decent detection rate."
"The solution's main antivirus capabilities are okay. So far, they have kept us safe."
"The most valuable features are that it is flexible, and it is integrated with Microsoft products."
"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."
"Because it has been integrated with the OS, we get the entire software inventories, and we even get access to the registries. Those are the primary features."
"It comes included with the Windows license."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is extremely stable."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"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."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is effective for validating work, but not ideal for investigations."
"I would like to be able to set up any kind of protection I want in the firewall, any IP address or any number."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint could provide us with a more holistic approach, such as collaboration. They can provide us with an environment from where we can manage all the endpoints from one central location, such as overall management."
"Notifications are always popping up — I hate that."
"The central console needs improvement. Both McAfee and Symantec antivirus have dashboards. These integrate with a server and work on my antivirus or some other product. However, with Microsoft Defender, you use Microsoft Group Policy Object. Defender does not provide a central console. Therefore, if you implement Defender, then maybe use another tool for the central view."
"Microsoft Defender could be improved with features more like the McAfee ePO. It would be better if I had a console to get all the information for my endpoints. Maybe this is too much for it, but it would be better if it could handle those non-signature-based malicious codes or viruses."
"I would like to see online updates for patches for this solution. I would also like to see online information about what is trending in the market in terms of spams, viruses, or trojans. It takes some time to understand how this solution works. A few things are unclear at the beginning, such as whether it actually restricts the virus or spam at the initial stage, or when there is a security update, how will we come to know and how will it get synchronized. It would be really helpful if there is some kind of knowledge base in the form of video, audio, or document that can explain in a user-friendly way the setup, features, risks, and process to mitigate the risks. Currently, I have installed endpoint security for every individual system. I could not install it like other endpoint solutions where we have a server and a client. It would be really helpful if Microsoft Windows Defender has a server-client based model so that I can save some bandwidth when it downloads or uploads features. It will be helpful if we have a LAN-based or WAN-based controlling system."
"Monitoring can always be better, onboarding can be a little bit faster, log collection could be easier, they could streamline the dashboard. They could maybe split it up into different workspaces and have the ability to segment groups a little bit more."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiEDR is ranked 13th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 30 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 182 reviews. Fortinet FortiEDR is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiEDR writes "A proactive solution that works as a proactive upgrade from a firewall". 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". Fortinet FortiEDR is most compared with Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, whereas Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon and Microsoft Intune. See our Fortinet FortiEDR 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.