We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and Fortinet FortiClient based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"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."
"It is stable and scalable."
"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."
"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"
"Immediately we can pick up the computers in the network if any malicious operation that is triggered."
"They do a very good job of providing multi-stage visualizations of malicious operations that immediately show all attack details across all devices and users. Since it is MalOp-centric model, you can see if there has been a similar operation across multiple machines. If it is the same thing appearing on multiple machines, you see all the machines and users affected in one screen."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"I haven't had any issues with the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the capability of the command used by the machine so that we see the kind of performance that is running."
"It gives all the information in a clear response."
"Their EDR solution, the ability to mitigate issues through their command line, is probably the best feature that we've had. We use that all the time. It's very useful for doing investigations."
"Cybereason absolutely enables us to mitigate and isolate on the fly. Our managed detection response telemetry has dropped dramatically since we began using it. It's very top-of-mind. We were running some tabletop exercises and none of the detections were getting triggered by the managed security services provider. So we needed to find a solution that would trigger high-fidelity alerts. That was Cybereason and it dramatically changed our landscape from the detection and response perspective."
"The solution is stable, we have not had any issues in the time we have been using it."
"The solution has inexpensive scalability, works very well and can communicate with other Fortinet devices."
"Fortinet FortiClient is not disruptive, and its interface is great. It has an in-built VPN, which is very useful."
"Remote connectivity is its most valuable feature."
"Fortinet FortiClient is easy to use, and the single-access managed login is pretty good."
"For our clients with remote sites and deployed firewalls, the filtering and authentication features are very helpful."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiClient are ease of use and simple configuration."
"The configuration is the most valuable feature."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"I feel that the product lacks reporting features and needs improvement."
"The integration with Microsoft solutions and Microsoft capabilities needs to be improved."
"Compared to our previous endpoint, we have a lot more false positives and a lot more duplication of alerts. So we're chasing more alerts."
"The network coverage becomes an issue most of the time."
"While the product is very good, there are still some areas for improvement. The initial triage area could be a bit simpler. They get into the weeds real fast; it gets very detailed very fast. I am still looking for an easier triage layer on top with the ability to dig deeper."
"Its Microsoft PowerShell protections still need some compatibility improvements. We have run across just a few. It is compatible with 90% of what we have in our network, but there is that 10% that we are still struggling with as far as compatibility with the type of PowerShell scripts needed to run our day-to-day business."
"The product's reporting isn't great."
"They need to improve their technical support services."
"Its stability can be improved. It is not as reliable as I would like it to be. There are times when things don't work quite right. Our biggest pain point is not related to Fortinet FortiClient and the whole scheme of things. It is related to one of the additional services called FortiGuard. They are the arm that does all of the updates to definitions, keeps all the signatures updated, and responds to new threats and whatnot. What we have found is that they react quickly, but sometimes their solutions aren't compatible with all of the components of the Fortinet security suite, specifically around FortiSandbox."
"I would like for the next release to be more user-friendly for users to do not have as much of a technical background."
"Occasionally, the solution may provide a slow connection. In addition, there may be initialization and authorization issues that one may need to take care of while using the solution."
"When we change our endpoint, we have to connect again, which means having to enter our credentials and permissions."
"The product's performance and pricing could be better."
"With Fortinet, some clients have to wait two to four days for a response. That is the biggest complaint from end customer about Fortinet's technical support."
"The memory check needs to be improved, giving better visibility into the run-time memory."
"Sometimes there are issues when we are trying to connect."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 43rd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 19 reviews while Fortinet FortiClient is ranked 14th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 86 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while Fortinet FortiClient is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response writes "It has helped us become more knowledgeable about our environment and aware of threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiClient writes "Easy to set up and user-friendly with good support ". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Darktrace, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas Fortinet FortiClient is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway and Ivanti Connect Secure. See our Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. Fortinet FortiClient 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.
