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."We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"In Digital Guardian, they have the cloud correlation servers that give you visibility work like EBR and the correlation server works very well for security analysis."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"It has been scalable."
"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."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"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"
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"The stability is very good."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"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."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"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."
"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."
"Technical support could be better."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"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."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"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."
"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."
"Detections could be improved."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"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 would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
Digital Guardian is ranked 28th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 11 reviews while Fortinet FortiEDR is ranked 12th 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.