We performed a comparison between CrowdStrike Falcon and Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response 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 product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"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."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"We are now able to find the root cause analysis on any threat. We can figure out where the issue came in versus just dealing with where it is at the moment."
"Falcon's best feature is its detection and blocking of threats."
"The CrowdStrike Falcon agent is very lightweight. Users never complain about their PCs getting stuck and things like that."
"The automatic alert feature is the most important feature of the solution."
"Scalability is good. We have had no issues with it."
"The detection is very effective."
"CrowdStrike Falcon offers a comprehensive dashboard that is highly effective in protecting against and blocking external infiltration attempts."
"Enables us to understand what processes are running on the system, what registry keys have been enabled."
"We didn't have the visibility that we now have. It has increased our visibility by a lot. So, we put a lot more time into really looking at our environment and what is happening throughout our different networks. It has increased our visibility by around fivefold."
"The solution is efficient."
"The dashboard is very good and you can consider it as an interactive UI."
"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."
"Immediately we can pick up the computers in the network if any malicious operation that is triggered."
"I haven't had any issues with the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The initial setup was easy and straightforward."
"The initial setup process is straightforward."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"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."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"It does take more time to scan than other solutions."
"I think there's an opportunity to enhance the AI or at least the traps to say, if something changes from this baseline, let us know and flag it."
"CrowdStrike Falcon could be enhanced by extending its security capabilities to include NDR and XDR."
"Tighter integration around XDR could be included."
"The solution needs to have integration with on-premises security devices and security facilities. That means all the security products, including the perimeter firewall, the DMZ."
"There are some aspects of the UI that could use some improvement, e.g., working in groups. I build a group, then I have to manually assign prevention policies, update policies, etc., but there is no function to copy that group. So, if I wanted to make a subgroup for troubleshooting or divide workstations into groups of laptops and desktops, then I have to manually build a brand new group. I can't just copy a build from one to another. Additionally, in order to do any work within a group, I have to first do the work on the respective prevention policy page or individual policy page, then remove the group if the group is assigned to a different prevention policy, remove the prevention policy, and then add the new one in. So, it can get a little hectic. It would be easier if I could add and remove things from the group page rather than having to go into the policy pages to do it."
"An improvement would be to extend support to legacy and unsupported servers."
"I would also like to see the endpoint firewall component produce some level of logging and feedback."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"I feel that the product lacks reporting features and needs improvement."
"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."
"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."
"There can be problems with the EDI."
"The deployment on individual endpoints is more geared toward larger organizations. It might prove to be a bit too complicated for a smaller organization. You need to know what you're doing when you're deploying the sensor."
"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."
"Cybereason does not have sandbox functionality."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
CrowdStrike Falcon is ranked 3rd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 106 reviews while Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 44th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 19 reviews. CrowdStrike Falcon is rated 8.8, while Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CrowdStrike Falcon writes "Easy to set up with good behavior-based analysis but needs a single-click recovery option". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response writes "It has helped us become more knowledgeable about our environment and aware of threats". CrowdStrike Falcon is most compared with Microsoft Defender XDR, Darktrace, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trend Micro Deep Security and VMware Carbon Black Endpoint, whereas Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Darktrace and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our CrowdStrike Falcon vs. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.
