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.
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"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."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The solution provides protections and reports about strange behavior and automatically blocks some of it. I love the way that statuses are represented."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has been secure and there is zero maintenance required because it updates with Microsoft Windows."
"The intelligence mechanisms are good."
"We have just started to implement it. It is useful for protection from malware and ransomware."
"Endpoint's most valuable feature is deep analysis."
"The installation is straightforward."
"It's one of the best antiviruses on the market."
"The protection that it provides is quite good."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"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."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The support needs improvement."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint does not provide much flexibility in terms of threats."
"I would like to see improvement from a management perspective. We have had to depend on Intune for certain tasks."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can improve by making the reporting faster. It takes some time to reflect back to the administration portal of what has been updated. For example, out of 100 Computers, approximately 90 computers received updates, but when you check the administration portal over one or two days, you will only see 75, even though 90 were updated."
"More integration with different platforms is an area for improvement for this product, and should be included in its next release."
"I would like to see integrations with other products, such as Spunk and other CM solutions. That would create possibilities for me, and for a SOC, to consolidate all events in an older console, not one provided by Microsoft but provided by a third party, and use it to create more insights."
"The file scanning has room for improvement. Many people use macros within their files, so there should be a mechanism that helps us to scan them for malicious payloads."
"The documentation could be better. When they update their manuals, sometimes they refer to products by their old names, so it is a little confusing. For example, the documentation might still say "Advanced Threat Protection" instead of Defender for Endpoint."
"I would like to see improvements made to how it secures activities on web pages."
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 ESET Endpoint Protection Platform. 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.