We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business 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."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."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"For me, the technical support is good."
"What I like most about Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is the support because the support is good. The solution is also easy to use, and it has a dashboard. Everything is good, and there's no problem with it."
"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."
"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 most valuable feature is the capability of the command used by the machine so that we see the kind of performance that is running."
"The dashboard is very good and you can consider it as an interactive UI."
"The initial setup was easy and straightforward."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the daily updates and protection from virus attacks."
"The initial setup is very simple."
"We're more familiar with Kaspersky's interface, and we find it more user-friendly. It also has more features than others, like with BitDefender and Mirco. The price is better, too."
"The tool's interface is good."
"The hardware hardware detection is the most valuable feature. The feature where you can block and unblock mobile devices is also good."
"Some of the most valuable features are the security and the stability, which are great. There are some imperfections, but everything is fine. In general, I think it's one of the best solutions."
"It has improved our performance and deployment."
"The stability has been good."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"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."
"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."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"The integration with Microsoft solutions and Microsoft capabilities needs to be improved."
"It initially took some time to deploy."
"What needs to improve in Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and what I'd like to see in its next release is a centralized dashboard that allows you to view what is there, similar to what's on Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager: a beautiful display and reporting. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response has to start with the compliance, the homepage, etc. Everything should be there and should be customizable. The options should be there. The tool is very good currently, but visibility for IT administrators is lacking and needs to be worked on."
"They need to improve their technical support services."
"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."
"The product's reporting isn't great."
"The network coverage becomes an issue most of the time."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security could have more visibility and threat hunting. Right now, if it detects a file, it's quarantined, and then we can't find more details other than the path and the file name. We don't see what process it's warning off and how the virus got in. So, the reporting on the quarantined items, why were they quarantined, etc., could be improved."
"As far as improvements, maybe the licensing could be cheaper, but I think this solution is pretty okay."
"It's does not have the architecture or structure to scale up."
"The initial setup is complex."
"It's very heavy and it affects the computer's performance."
"When it comes to handling the expiration of licenses, the solution should give a company more time to set up a renewal. It happens too abruptly right now."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business doesn't have a built-in DLP (data loss prevention) solution."
"The licensing fees could be reduced."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 43rd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 19 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 111 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response writes "It has helped us become more knowledgeable about our environment and aware of threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Darktrace, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Trend Vision One Endpoint Security. See our Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business 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.