Office Manager at a legal firm with 1-10 employees
Real User
Top 20
2024-02-14T20:55:00Z
Feb 14, 2024
It is a little pricey. It is a little on the high end, but we are continuing to use it. We signed the contract and have not canceled, so we find value in having it.
President & Cybersecurity Specialist at CarefreeIT
MSP
2023-12-27T18:51:00Z
Dec 27, 2023
The pricing is fair and reasonable. Covalence stands out for its focus on catering to the needs of SMBs, making it a more cost-effective choice in comparison to competitors. It offers flexibility by not imposing minimum user requirements and can accommodate even small businesses with just two users.
The shift to a per-user pricing model and the introduction of a base price for the on-premises or virtual appliance has been particularly advantageous. This pricing structure aligns well with the needs of almost all my clients, especially smaller companies, eliminating the challenges associated with block pricing.
Manager of Digital Customer Engagements and Projects at a healthcare company with 11-50 employees
Reseller
2023-12-15T20:46:00Z
Dec 15, 2023
The licensing model itself is solid, but we're ironing out some inconsistencies in how customer profiles are configured. This is particularly relevant in a user-based model, where company headcount might be low while actual user counts are higher due to contractors or remote workers. It creates a gray area about which users get billed, but we're actively discussing solutions with Field Effect.
Field Effect is considering revising its agreement terms. While the contract duration might change, the pricing remains highly attractive. In some cases, it's half the price of competing products, and at high volume, it can be as much as 50 percent less than CrowdStrike, for example. Covalence offers even greater efficiency and functionality, making it a more effective product with wider capabilities than its competitors. Combined with the significantly lower price, it becomes an extremely compelling option.
While Field Effect Covalence's pricing seems competitive for the market, the biggest hurdle lies in the lack of dedicated security budgets within many organizations. Convincing these companies to allocate further IT expenditure specifically for security can be tough. They often struggle to justify adding another line item when they're already paying for individual security tools. This fragmented approach can leave them without a comprehensive monitoring system, which ultimately is the most critical need. So, the primary challenge isn't the price point, but rather helping companies understand the value proposition of a holistic security solution and how it complements their existing infrastructure. Once that hurdle is cleared, the current pricing of Field Effect Covalence appears reasonable.
Field Effect MDR (Managed Detection and Response) is a comprehensive cybersecurity solution designed to protect your organization's IT infrastructure. It provides multi-layered threat protection for endpoints, networks, and cloud services, ensuring no gaps in defense. The product features 24/7 threat detection and monitoring, combining advanced technology with human expertise from a Security Operations Center (SOC) to identify potential threats early. It includes automated threat response...
It is a little pricey. It is a little on the high end, but we are continuing to use it. We signed the contract and have not canceled, so we find value in having it.
The pricing isn't sized, so Field Effect doesn't make it easy for anything under 25 users. I'm not crazy about that.
The pricing is fair and reasonable. Covalence stands out for its focus on catering to the needs of SMBs, making it a more cost-effective choice in comparison to competitors. It offers flexibility by not imposing minimum user requirements and can accommodate even small businesses with just two users.
The shift to a per-user pricing model and the introduction of a base price for the on-premises or virtual appliance has been particularly advantageous. This pricing structure aligns well with the needs of almost all my clients, especially smaller companies, eliminating the challenges associated with block pricing.
The pricing for Covalence is great.
The licensing model itself is solid, but we're ironing out some inconsistencies in how customer profiles are configured. This is particularly relevant in a user-based model, where company headcount might be low while actual user counts are higher due to contractors or remote workers. It creates a gray area about which users get billed, but we're actively discussing solutions with Field Effect.
Field Effect is considering revising its agreement terms. While the contract duration might change, the pricing remains highly attractive. In some cases, it's half the price of competing products, and at high volume, it can be as much as 50 percent less than CrowdStrike, for example. Covalence offers even greater efficiency and functionality, making it a more effective product with wider capabilities than its competitors. Combined with the significantly lower price, it becomes an extremely compelling option.
While Field Effect Covalence's pricing seems competitive for the market, the biggest hurdle lies in the lack of dedicated security budgets within many organizations. Convincing these companies to allocate further IT expenditure specifically for security can be tough. They often struggle to justify adding another line item when they're already paying for individual security tools. This fragmented approach can leave them without a comprehensive monitoring system, which ultimately is the most critical need. So, the primary challenge isn't the price point, but rather helping companies understand the value proposition of a holistic security solution and how it complements their existing infrastructure. Once that hurdle is cleared, the current pricing of Field Effect Covalence appears reasonable.
I'm not really involved in the pricing.
Covalence is cost-effective.
The cost of the solution is high.