We performed a comparison between Cynet and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Cynet offers strong ransomware protection and an intuitive interface. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is highly regarded for its automated processes, advanced threat analysis, and extensive security measures, including protection against ransomware and access controls. Cynet needs to expand device support and add customization options. Users suggest improving network monitoring and strengthening integration with other tools. Microsoft Defender for Cloud could use enhancements in automation and ease of use.
Service and Support: Cynet's customer service is consistently lauded for its excellence. They have a dedicated support team that is available round the clock, and they also have a contingency plan for urgent incidents. Some Defender for Cloud users reported positive experiences with Microsoft, while others complained that the solution's outsourced support lacked technical knowledge.
Ease of Deployment: Cynet’s setup is highly efficient, with the ability to configure thousands of devices quickly. The initial setup of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is described as straightforward, but the deployment time may vary depending on specific requirements.
Pricing: Customers generally view Cynet's pricing and licensing experience as affordable and a good value for its features. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is in the mid-to-high pricing tier. While some users find it expensive, others believe it offers good value.
ROI: Cynet yields an excellent ROI by preventing cyberattacks and safeguarding sensitive data. Microsoft Defender for Cloud streamlines security tasks and saves users money by consolidating various solutions.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Cynet over Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Cynet features a personalized experience, automatic updates, and an intuitive dashboard. Users value its comprehensive automation as well as its advanced detection and response.
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"It is stable and scalable."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The dashboard is beautiful, overall easy of use, and the UBA and NBA features are valued."
"In terms of incident response, Cynet can contain attacks, offer a trial period to customers, and uninstall if not continued. The most valuable aspect is its integration capabilities, covering endpoints and network data for a comprehensive view of threats."
"Its ability to revert back from a previous state is quite notable. This feature is particularly valuable because, for maintaining integrity, it can inspect the socket for any firewall modifications. In practice, it allows us to return to a previous configuration when everything was functioning correctly."
"We are very satisfied with the level of performance we get."
"A good feature is how the solution packages varied information into a single dashboard that's readable and meets our needs."
"It's transparent, so it's not something where every user has to press a button to download or do the thing. It is centralized, in fact. Personally, I use Malwarebytes and other tools, which are fine for home use. Cynet is also relatively silent in terms of operation, except when it's required to act."
"It is quite stable. I would rate the stability of the solution a nine out of ten."
"It is a very stable solution...It is a very scalable solution...The initial setup of Cynet was easy."
"DSPM is the most valuable feature."
"The security alerts and correlated alerts are most valuable. It correlates the logs and gives us correlated alerts, which can be fed into any security information and event management (SIEM) tool. It is an analyzed correlation tool for monitoring security. It gives us alerts when there is any kind of unauthorized access, or when there is any malfunctioning in multifactor authentication (MFA). If our Azure is connected with Azure Security Center, we get to know what types of authentication are happening in our infra."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the remote workforce capabilities and the general experience of the remote workforce."
"The security policy is the most valuable feature for us. We can go into the environment settings and attach any globally recognized framework like ISO or any benchmark."
"It helps you to identify the gaps in your solution and remediate them. It produces a compliance checklist against known standards such as ISO 27001, HIPAA, iTrust, etc."
"The dashboard is very good. It gives our clients a lot of information and allows them to have a complete overview of the system. Everything is visible in one glance."
"The main feature is the security posture assessment through the security score. I find that to be very helpful because it gives us guidance on what needs to be secured and recommendations on how to secure the workloads that have been onboarded."
"The most valuable features are ransomware protection and access controls. The solution has helped us secure some folders on our systems from unauthorized modifications."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"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."
"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."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"Detections could be improved."
"There could be more customization options and detailed information provided in the reports."
"It is an endpoint agent, but they don't have a probe for checking the network traffic. They could improve from this point of view."
"There are some shortcomings in Cynet's integration capabilities that need improvement."
"Management of the console could be simplified and made more user-friendly because right now it's not very easy to use."
"They have automated response capability, and they're moving more and more into SOAR capability. They have built-in deception technology with host-file users, phantoms, etc. We used to call them honeypots. So, they're on target. They're doing a really good job, and they should continue to improve with SOAR."
"SIEM - Although with their Centralised Log Management Cynet has created the basis for SIEM functionality, this is to be expanded in the near future."
"The reporting is a little weak and could be improved. The other downside is that Cynet does not use the local time zone. It's based off of Greenwich Mean Time."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the usability of this product for new threats. Meaning, not everything which is new is properly seen by the product and not all the required actions are taken."
"The solution is quite complex. A lot of the different policies that actually get applied don't pertain to every client. If you need to have something open for a client application to work, then you get dinged for having a port open or having an older version of TLS available."
"Sometimes it's very difficult to determine when I need Microsoft Defender for Cloud for a special resource group or a special kind of product."
"The documentation and implementation guides could be improved."
"The overview provides you with good information, but if you want more details, there is a lot more customization to do, which requires knowledge of the other supporting solutions."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
"There is no perfect product in the world and there are always features that can be added."
"After getting a recommendation, it takes time for the solution to refresh properly to show that the problem has been eliminated."
"If a customer is already using Okta as an SSO in its entire environment, they will want to continue with it. But Security Center doesn't understand that and keeps making recommendations. It would help if it let us resolve a recommendation, even if it is not implemented."
Cynet is ranked 15th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 35 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews. Cynet is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Check Point Harmony Endpoint, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Cynet vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud 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.