We compared CylancePROTECT and Intercept X Endpoint (Sophos) based on our users reviews in five parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: CylancePROTECT and Sophos' Intercept X Endpoint are both endpoint security solutions that provide advanced technology and protection against threats. CylancePROTECT is appreciated for its simple deployment and implementation, accurate threat detection, and user-friendly dashboard. However, it is considered expensive and some have concerns about the quality of support. On the other hand, Intercept X Endpoint offers multi-platform capability, centralized management, and 24/7 monitoring. It also has fair pricing and helpful technical support. Suggestions for improvements include installation speed, performance impact, and pricing. In summary, CylancePROTECT prioritizes technological advancements while Intercept X Endpoint focuses on multi-platform capability and effective threat management.
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"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."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The solution is extremely scalable. It's got the hybrid functionality, it's got the system functionality and cloud functionality as well."
"The solution is pretty easy to scale."
"The solution is easy to deploy."
"The solution is very quick at easily changing the levels of protection for each computer and the server."
"What I like best about CylancePROTECT is its accuracy, as it doesn't give many false positives."
"It does a good job of protecting us."
"Endpoints are protected in real-time without the need of a centralized server."
"It is a good endpoint solution. It is very easy to manage and detect the threat immediately. It will take the necessary actions."
"Offers artificial intelligence, security metrics and a lot of information gathered to make decisions."
"The most valuable feature is the anti-ransomware capability. It's been helpful because we have been seeing a lot of information around what the ransomware hit."
"The patches on offer are very helpful."
"Malware protection and application blocking are absolutely great. The DLP and malware features are very helpful. It is also very user-friendly, reliable, and scalable. It is easy to set up. We are also happy with its price and support."
"The package we use also comes with spam filtering features, which are quite useful."
"The performance is good."
"Synchronization with the firewall is most valuable."
"I like the way it goes beyond the office space. Being a cloud-based solution makes it very easy to manage your endpoints within the office. In this time of COVID, you can also very effectively manage people who are working from home."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"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."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"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."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"Having worked with SentinelOne, Cylance is good, however, it probably needs to add a feature similar to SentinelOne's rollback functionality. With this feature, if you get infected, with a click, you can go back to the pre-infection state. If Cylance could add this functionality to their offering as well, that would be ideal."
"The product needs to continue to offer better alerts. In particular, around false positives. It needs to reduce them from happening."
"The process of whitelisting a script that you want to be able to run can be a little bit difficult, or awkward."
"It was not effective. There were a lot of false positives, even when we use Adobe, and everybody uses Adobe, which is not a threat."
"It's a good solution but some features just need to be updated."
"The user interface is outdated."
"It needs real analysis of quarantined files. The EDR product isn't showing much right now."
"The product must make the interface a little more user-friendly."
"Should include additional integration."
"They don't have the full stack of offerings as compared to the other competitive products that we see."
"The performance is very slow and should be faster."
"The majority of our systems are MacBooks and their solution release cycle is slow to endorsing or support the MacBook's latest OS or hardware platform. For example, when Sophos macOS Big Sur version 11 was released, it took them a while to support this version of OS. A similar situation occurred when the MacBook M1 hardware CPU was released. They have not fully supported the native M1 CPU to this day. They need to speed up the solutions release cycle."
"Better protection in the endpoint, server, and mobile is needed."
"I would like the solution to have more functions and to be more user-friendly."
"The product defends very well on its own but could possibly use enhancement in giving users more controls."
"I recommend that Intercept X Endpoint should include a patch assessment feature. Various vendors offer virtual patching solutions, which could be a game-changer, especially for the financial sector where frequent service restarts are challenging. These solutions allow patching servers without the need for restarts. Incorporating these features into Intercept X Endpoint would enhance its effectiveness in securing endpoints and servers."
CylancePROTECT is ranked 23rd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 41 reviews while Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 101 reviews. CylancePROTECT is rated 8.0, while Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of CylancePROTECT writes "Ensures advanced AI-driven threat detection to provide robust endpoint security, effectively preventing both known and unknown threats with minimal impact on system performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". CylancePROTECT is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Endpoint Security, whereas Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Seqrite Endpoint Security. See our CylancePROTECT vs. Intercept X Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.