We performed a comparison between Cynet and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Cynet offers strong ransomware protection and an intuitive interface. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is highly regarded for its automated processes, advanced threat analysis, and extensive security measures, including protection against ransomware and access controls. Cynet needs to expand device support and add customization options. Users suggest improving network monitoring and strengthening integration with other tools. Microsoft Defender for Cloud could use enhancements in automation and ease of use.
Service and Support: Cynet's customer service is consistently lauded for its excellence. They have a dedicated support team that is available round the clock, and they also have a contingency plan for urgent incidents. Some Defender for Cloud users reported positive experiences with Microsoft, while others complained that the solution's outsourced support lacked technical knowledge.
Ease of Deployment: Cynet’s setup is highly efficient, with the ability to configure thousands of devices quickly. The initial setup of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is described as straightforward, but the deployment time may vary depending on specific requirements.
Pricing: Customers generally view Cynet's pricing and licensing experience as affordable and a good value for its features. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is in the mid-to-high pricing tier. While some users find it expensive, others believe it offers good value.
ROI: Cynet yields an excellent ROI by preventing cyberattacks and safeguarding sensitive data. Microsoft Defender for Cloud streamlines security tasks and saves users money by consolidating various solutions.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Cynet over Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Cynet features a personalized experience, automatic updates, and an intuitive dashboard. Users value its comprehensive automation as well as its advanced detection and response.
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"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."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"It is a very stable solution...It is a very scalable solution...The initial setup of Cynet was easy."
"A good feature is how the solution packages varied information into a single dashboard that's readable and meets our needs."
"It provides good protection from ransomware and malware attacks. It is very good as compared to other products. If any threat is there, their support is very good. They immediately respond to the users and do a follow-up. They call us and also provide email support."
"We are using almost all of the features and we find it quite good overall."
"The product is very easy to use. Customers really appreciate that."
"The feature I find most valuable, is the reality graphical user interface."
"I like that it is possible to use the solution to check more information about the users' devices."
"In terms of incident response, Cynet can contain attacks, offer a trial period to customers, and uninstall if not continued. The most valuable aspect is its integration capabilities, covering endpoints and network data for a comprehensive view of threats."
"Defender for Cloud is a plug-and-play solution that provides continuous posture management once enabled."
"It is very intuitive when it comes to policy administration, alerts and notifications, and ease of setting up roles at different hierarchies. It has also been good in terms of the network technology maps. It provides a good overview, but it also depends on the complexity of your network."
"With respect to improving our security posture, it helps us to understand where we are in terms of compliance. We can easily know when we are below the standard because of the scores it calculates."
"Microsoft Defender has a lot of features including regulatory compliance and attaching workbooks but the most valuable is the recommendations it provides for each and every resource when we open Microsoft Defender."
"It takes very little effort to integrate it. It also gives very good visibility into what exactly is happening."
"Defender lets you orchestrate the roll-out from a single pane. Using the Azure portal, you can roll it out over all the servers covered by the entire subscription."
"The integration with Logic Apps allows for automated responses to incidents."
"The dashboard is very good. It gives our clients a lot of information and allows them to have a complete overview of the system. Everything is visible in one glance."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"The support needs improvement."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"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."
"The solution is not stable."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"An administration feature will be useful for Cynet."
"There is room for improvement in terms of support. The support should be faster to respond."
"The reporting is a little weak and could be improved. The other downside is that Cynet does not use the local time zone. It's based off of Greenwich Mean Time."
"Cynet could improve when a reverse proxy is being used to connect to the servers. There could be an easier configuration because it is not plug-and-play."
"There could be more customization options and detailed information provided in the reports."
"I cannot provide more details about Cynet's automation features. While Cynet claims to be automated, the specifics of this automation are unclear. They claim to have a high capability to detect and block attacks, but I am cautious about companies that claim to solve every problem without limitations. It does help in identifying malware on the network but doesn't specifically identify vulnerabilities."
"I'd like to see more data loss prevention within the product."
"A support center in Asia is needed."
"For Kubernetes, I was using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). To see that whatever is getting deployed into AKS goes through the correct checks and balances in terms of affinities and other similar aspects and follows all the policies, we had to use a product called Stackrox. At a granular level, the built-in policies were good for Kubernetes, but to protect our containers from a coding point of view, we had to use a few other products. For example, from a programming point of view, we were using Checkmarx for static code analysis. For CIS compliance, there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, we had to use other plugins to see that the CIS benchmarks are compliant. There are CIS benchmarks for Kubernetes on AWS and GCP, but there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, Azure Security Center fell short from the regulatory compliance point of view, and we had to use one more product. We ended up with two different dashboards. We had Azure Security Center, and we had Stackrox that had its own dashboard. The operations team and the security team had to look at two dashboards, and they couldn't get an integrated piece. That's a drawback of Azure Security Center. Azure Security Center should provide APIs so that we can integrate its dashboard within other enterprise dashboards, such as the PowerBI dashboard. We couldn't get through these aspects, and we ended up giving Reader security permission to too many people, which was okay to some extent, but when we had to administer the users for the Stackrox portal and Azure Security Center, it became painful."
"It needs to be simplified and made more user-friendly for a non-technical person."
"The initial setup is not actually so complex but it feels complex because there are many add-ons. There are many options and my team needs to be aware of all of these changes happening on the backend which is a distraction."
"No possibility to write or edit any capability."
"Agent features need to be improved. They support agents through Azure Arc or Workbench. Sometimes, we are not able to get correct signals from the machines on which we have installed these agents. We are not able to see how many are currently reporting to Azure Security Center, and how many are currently not reporting. For example, we have 1,000 machines, and we have enrolled 1,000 OMS agents on these machines to collect the log. When I look at the status, even though at some places, it shows that it is connected, but when I actually go and check, I'm not getting any alerts from those. There are some discrepancies on the agent, and the agent features are not up to the mark."
"The documentation could be much clearer."
"Sometimes, it's very difficult to determine when I need Microsoft Defender for Cloud for a special resource group or certain kinds of products. That's not an issue directly with the product, though."
"The product was a bit complex to set up earlier, however, it is a bit streamlined now."
Cynet is ranked 15th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 35 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews. Cynet is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Check Point Harmony Endpoint, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Cynet vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud 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.
