We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Carbon Black CB Defense Alternatives and Competitors

Get our free report covering CrowdStrike, Microsoft, SentinelOne, and other competitors of Carbon Black CB Defense. Updated: November 2021.
554,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Carbon Black CB Defense alternatives and competitors

DS
Enterprise Security Architect at a recruiting/HR firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Single pane of glass allows us to run a lean team while protecting tens of thousands of endpoints around the world

Pros and Cons

  • "SentinelOne also provides equal protection across Windows, Linux, and macOS. I have all of them and every flavor of them you could possibly imagine. They've done a great job because I still have a lot of legacy infrastructure to support. It can support legacy environments as well as newer environments, including all the latest OS's... There are cost savings not only on licensing but because I don't have to have different people managing different consoles."
  • "If it had a little bit more granularity in the roles and responsibilities matrix, that would help. There are users that have different components, but I'd be much happier if I could cherry-pick what functions I want to give to which users. That would be a huge benefit."

What is our primary use case?

We use it for endpoint protection. It's an active EDR endpoint protection tool. Think of it as an antivirus and endpoint protection solution with machine learning, like McAfee on steroids.

In our company it is deployed in 83 countries and on over 40,000 workstations and servers.

How has it helped my organization?

It provides incredible visibility in a single pane of glass. The dashboard gives me visibility over all the endpoints, which are broken down by country, and then broken down within each country by brand and machine type. It provides a very simple way for me to understand if

  • we're being targeted globally
  • my endpoints are actively being attacked
  • we have outstanding issues in any one region
  • we have malicious activity.

In addition, it logs to my SIEM tool, cloud-natively, which makes it a very effective weapon to help diagnose and remediate any potential bad actors in my environment.

The Behavioral AI feature for ransomware and anti-malware protection does an outstanding job of identifying abnormal behavior patterns in my environment. Once we allowed it to sit in learning mode for about 30 days, we switched all our endpoints into what is called Protect mode, instead of Detect mode. With Protect mode, we have different functions available to us, such as kill, quarantine, identify, and rollback. Using those features, we are really able to protect our endpoints much better. We take advantage of the fact that we have a machine, or an automated process, governing our endpoint protection. That reduces the total headcount needed to babysit my environment.

Furthermore, Behavioral AI recognizes novel and fileless attacks and responds in real-time. It improves my security, reduces my total cost of ownership and management, and provides enhanced protection for what is now a highly mobile population. Due to COVID-19, we have had to take most of our workforce, and that's over 40,000 people around the world, and give them access to work remotely through a series of different mechanisms. In doing so, we felt much more comfortable because we have this endpoint protection tool deployed. It provides us not only the visibility into what the tool is doing and how it's protecting us, but it allows us to look at what applications are installed, what IP range is coming on, and what network it's sourced from.

And with Ranger we're able to help identify additional networks. Using SentinelOne with Ranger, allowed us to take a look at some of our smaller offices in Asia Pacific where we didn't have exceptional visibility.

We also use the solution’s automatic remediation and rollback in Protect mode, without human intervention. I want to protect mode for both malicious and suspicious, and that is in Protect mode. Having turned that on, we saw no negative impact, across the board, which has been an outstanding feature for us. It does save time on having to go in and identify things, because we allowed it to run in learning mode for so long. It learned our business processes. It learned what's normal. It learned file types. It learned everything that we do enough that, when I did turn that feature on, there were no helpdesk calls, no madness ensued, no people complaining that files were being removed that they needed. It worked out very well for us. 

We also use the solution’s ActiveEDR technology. Its automatic monitoring of every OS process, at all times, improves our security operations greatly. There is a learning time involved. It has to learn what processes are normal. But the fact that it's actively engaged with every process—every file that moves across it, every DLL that's launched, whether or not it's automated or process-driven—everything is viewed, inspected, and categorized. And it allows us to have enhanced visibility that ties directly into the Deep Visibility. I can look at and help identify behavior patterns. 

For example, yesterday I wrote a series of queries for Deep Visibility that are based on MITRE ATT&CK parameters. Those give me reports, on a daily basis, of how effective this tool really is because I can use MITRE ATT&CK engine parameters to help define what's going on. Even if something is not considered malicious behavior by the tool itself, if I take that information and couple it with information I can pull from Tanium and information I pull from other tool sets, and aggregate that into my SIEM tool, my use case is provided. I get more positive and actionable intelligence on how my endpoints are behaving. If I have somebody out there who is doing testing of software, I can pick that out of a crowd in a second.

We have application control and containers available. Since we have AWS, Azure, and a myriad of cloud platforms, it's been hugely beneficial to us. Considering that we are endeavoring, as an organization, to move into cloud-based solutions, this has been a huge benefit.

Overall, SentinelOne has absolutely reduced incident response time. It's instantaneous. It has reduced it by at least 95 percent.

I use the tool to help me determine how well my other tools are working. For example, we have a role called a RISO, a regional information security officer. Those people are responsible for regions of the globe, whether it be Latin America, Asia Pacific, or AMEA. The RISOs now use the tool because it can help them identify other tools we have rolled out, like Zscaler. They can go into the SentinelOne console and query for Zscaler and look at all the machines in their environment and determine what the delta is. It allows people with different levels of knowledge and different roles in an organization to have visibility. It's been outstanding. That, in and of itself, makes it a better tool than its counterparts and it makes it usable for non-technical and non-security people.

We get the long-term strategic benefits of having enhanced visibility and the more short-term tactical benefits of knowing that our endpoints are protected, the visibility is there, and that no matter what lands on top of it, it's going to get taken care of.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to learn, the fact that once you tune it correctly, it knows how to capture and defeat malicious activity on the endpoints. It's not set-it-and-forget-it, but it does give me a much more comfortable feeling that my endpoints are secure and protected from malicious behavior.

SentinelOne also provides equal protection across Windows, Linux, and macOS. I have all of them and every flavor of them you could possibly imagine. They've done a great job because I still have a lot of legacy infrastructure to support. It can support legacy environments as well as newer environments, including all the latest OS's. The latest Mac OS X that's coming out is already supported and in test for our organization. The complete coverage of every OS that we have in our environment has been a huge benefit because I don't have to have different tools to support them. There are cost savings not only on licensing but because I don't have to have different people managing different consoles. For me, having single pane of glass visibility is incredibly important because we run a very lean team here. We are a skeleton crew governing all 83 countries. In doing so, it provides us the ability to do a lot more with a lot less.

I use the Deep Visibility feature every single day. It is outstanding because I just create hunting cases and then I can load them. I can figure out what queries I want to run and I can go digging. And with the queries that I have built for the MITRE ATT&CKs, it makes it very simple to identify something. And now that I have reporting set up based on those queries, I get emails every day.

Using Deep Visibility I have identified a threat and figured out information about it. I've also used Deep Visibility to be proactive versus reactive as far as my alerting goes. I know that SentinelOne will protect my endpoints, but there's also a case where there isn't specific malicious behavior but the patterns look malicious. And that's really what I'm writing these queries for in Deep Visibility.

Here's an example. You can do a lateral movement in an organization. You can RDP to one server and RDP to another server, depending on how your software defined perimeter is configured. Unless you do something malicious, SentinelOne will look at it, but it won't necessarily stop it, because there is no malicious activity. But I can write a query in Deep Visibility to show me things. Let's say somebody breached my secure remote access solution. With the Deep Visibility queries that are being run, I can see that that one machine may have RDPed to a server and RDPed to another server and been jumping around because they may have gotten compromised credentials. That can be reported on. It might not have been malicious behavior, but it's an activity that the reporting from Deep Visibility allows me to pursue and then do a deeper dive into it.

What needs improvement?

If they would stop changing the dashboard so much I'd be a happy man. 

Also, if it had a little bit more granularity in the roles and responsibilities matrix, that would help. There are users that have different components, but I'd be much happier if I could cherry-pick what functions I want to give to which users. That would be a huge benefit.

The nice thing about SentinelOne is that I get to directly engage with their leadership at any time I want. That allows me to provide feedback such as, "I would like this function," and they've built a lot of functions for me as a result of my requests. I don't really have much in the way of complaints because if I want something, I generally tend to get it.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using SentinelOne for about 14 months now.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's incredibly stable. We really haven't had any significant issues. There have been a couple of things here and there where certain versions of the product weren't disabling Windows Defender effectively. I think that was predicated on a GPO that we identified that had been accidentally linked and that kept turning Defender back on again. The issues were very trivial things.

How are customer service and technical support?

I talk to my TAM once a week, minimum. I think I have the best customer support in the business.

I had an issue that I raised a couple of weeks ago and within minutes I had an army of engineers working on it. By the end of the week, I had senior management calling me asking me what else I want, what else I need, and how else they could help me. 

They go all-in. I have never had to wonder or concern myself with whether I will be getting adequate support? Will the support be on time? Will the support be effective and accurate? Not once, not ever.

I have such a close relationship with the team, not only the team that sold it to me but the team that supports me. We call each other on a first-name basis and we talk about how we're doing. It's that kind professional relationship. That's how good it is.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Before, we had a mix of dozens of different solutions across the enterprise. We didn't have any one, ubiquitous solution. We had a mix of McAfee and Panda and Kaspersky. You name it, we owned a copy of it, and that didn't provide a unified field of view. It also didn't provide the best protection that money can buy and, in my opinion as a professional in this industry for 25 years, this is the best protection money can buy.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup of SentinelOne was very simple. I packaged the executables into MSIs, including the token ID, I created a package in Tanium, and I dropped it on all the workstations. I was able to deploy it to over 40,000 endpoints in 35 days.

When you govern as much real estate as I do, meaning the number of endpoints and the number of different business units that those endpoints comprise, there had to be a deployment strategy for it. I broke it down into countries, and in each of those countries I broke into brands and I broke it into asset types, whether they be servers or workstations, whether they're mobile or localized. It's not difficult to push out there, as long as you create exclusions. I used my legacy tools in parallel with this for a month and still never faced any issues.

For any organization, if you have any kind of deployment mechanism in place, you could put your entire workforce on this and it wouldn't matter how many endpoints. If they're online and available and you have a deployment solution, you could do it in a month, easily, if not less. I could've done it much faster, but I needed to do a pilot country first. I did all the testing and validations and then, once we went into production mode, it was very fast.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I got a really good deal so I'm very happy with the pricing.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I looked at everything. I looked at CrowdStrike, Cylance, Carbon Black, and I had McAfee as the largest of the incumbents. I tested them all and I validated them all and I pushed every malware virus—everything in my collection—at them. I built a series of VMs to test and validate the platform. I tested against multiple operating systems. I tested against downloads, I tested against uploads. I tested visibility. I did this entire series of tests and listed out 34 or 35 different criteria. And at the end of the day, SentinelOne came out on top.

One of the huge benefits of SentinelOne is the Full Remote Shell. That has been an incredibly useful tool for me.

Cylance came in second. It has very similar functionalities, very similar builds, but not a full remote shell. It had the single pane of glass dashboard, but the visibility I get out of SentinelOne, as well as the protection and the capability to run the Full Remote Shell pushed it over the top.

Carbon Black was nice, but I had to run two different dashboards, one cloud and one local. I couldn't get single pane of glass visibility from that.

When I tested SentinelOne against all the engines, they all pretty much found everything. Mimikatz was the deciding factor. A couple of the solutions flagged it but didn't remediate it. SentinelOne just rolled everything back as it started to discover it. It actually pulled the installer out, so that was nice. 

A lot of new technologies that are out there are very similar. They are pulling from public threat feeds and other learning engines. But if you compare and contrast all the features available, SentinelOne is just going to edge everybody else out. And they're constantly evolving the product to make it more efficient and to have a smaller footprint too. When they came out with Ranger, we were still doing some network discoveries around our environment to try to figure out exactly what was still out there. That came to be a very useful tool.

It really just shines. If you compare it to everybody else there are a lot that come close, but nobody else can really quite get to the top. SentinelOne really gives you the best overall picture.

What other advice do I have?

Do your homework. I would encourage everybody, if you have the capabilities, to do what I did and test it against everything out there. If you don't have those capabilities and you want to save yourself a lot of time, just go straight to SentinelOne. I cannot imagine any organization regretting that decision. With the news stories you read about, such as hospitals under attack from malware and crypto viruses—with all the bad actors that exist, especially since the pandemic took over—if you want to protect your environment and sleep soundly at night, and if you're in the security industry, I highly encourage you to deploy SentinelOne and just watch what it's capable of.

I don't use the Storyline technology that much simply because I'm really turning this into a more automated process for my organization. An example of where we may use Storyline is when we download an encrypted malicious file. Let's say that email was sent to 500 people. If it gets through our email gateway, which is unlikely, I can not only identify those users quickly, but I can also use the Storyline to determine where it came from, how it got there, and what it was doing along the way. And while it killed it, it will tell me what processes were there. It helps us create and identify things like the hash, which we then summarily blacklist. Overall, Storyline is better for identifying what had happened along the way, but after the fact. For me, the fact that it has actually taken care of it without me having to go hunt it down all the time is the real benefit.

The only thing we don't take advantage of is their management service. We do have a TAM, but we don't have Vigilance.

For top-down administration, there's only about six of us who work with the solution. For country level administration, we have one or two in every country in those 83 countries.

We run a myriad of different front office and back office environments. SentinelOne had to learn different environments in different countries. It had to understand the business processes that are surrounding those. We did a substantial amount of tuning along the way, during the deployment. And then, of course, there are agent updates and there are considerations when you get a new EA version and are creating test groups. But, as an organization, we have reduced our total cost of ownership for our EPP platform, we have improved our visibility a hundred-fold, and we have maintained our data integrity. It really is the one end-all and be-all solution that we needed.

It's a home run. I've been doing this a long time and I've done this in over 48 countries around the world. Given what we do with this product and the visibility it has given us and the protection it has given us, I feel very comfortable with my security right now.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Mark Bonnamy
Technical Director at Ridgewall Ltd
Reseller
Top 5
Targets issues more accurately, helping us to focus high-cost engineering resources more accurately

Pros and Cons

  • "If somebody has been compromised, the question always is: How has it affected other devices in the network? Cisco AMP gives you a very neat view of that."
  • "The ability to detonate a particular problem in a sandbox environment and understand what the effects are, is helpful. We're trying, for example, to determine, when people send information in, if an attachment is legitimate or not. You just have to open it. If you can do that in a secure sandbox environment, that's an invaluable feature. What you would do otherwise would be very risky and tedious."
  • "...the greatest value of all, would be to make the security into a single pane of glass. Whilst these products are largely integrated from a Talos perspective, they're not integrated from a portal perspective. For example, we have to look at an Umbrella portal and a separate AMP portal. We also have to look at a separate portal for the firewalls. If I could wave a magic wand and have one thing, I would put all the Cisco products into one, simple management portal."

What is our primary use case?

We needed an endpoint security product and this was the one that we chose. We also use Cisco Umbrella, which fits in neatly with the endpoint as endpoints are moving, more and more, out of the office now. Traditionally, it's slightly harder to manage that, so we use Cisco AMP and Umbrella on those endpoints to secure them.

It's almost entirely on-premise. Although there are some small cloud installations where we use it.

How has it helped my organization?

The fact that the solution offers cloud-delivered endpoint protection makes it simpler to use. Historically, Cisco's appliances have been relatively expensive and that has been a block to Cisco getting into the SME space, which is our particular focus. Having it cloud-based, where there's no cost, as such, to get the deployment running, has made it easier to sell to small businesses. We've got AMP installations with as few as two users. In the past, with Cisco, we would never have been able to deliver into that size of business without some sort of cloud for delivering it.

It also has a neat web interface that allows us to access it simply and therefore more people are able to manage it, rather than it being a specialist product. We're able to give it to more junior people on the helpdesk and they're able to determine quite quickly and simply what the state of the environment is and, if needed, escalate it to more senior people if they believe there's an issue. That's worked well for us.

We had quite a large client that had a partial AMP installation only covering key assets, and they were hit by ransomware. It was only Cisco AMP that showed where the problems were. The rest of the antivirus that they had across the estate was completely ineffective. AMP was intact and it gave the engineers the vital information they required to remediate the problem. With all attacks what we're interested in is knowing what was "patient zero," where the problem came in, and where it's spread. That can be a challenge sometimes when you've got multiple devices in a network and you're looking across a large number of PCs to work out who was compromised first and, therefore, what the course of action is.

It has decreased our time to remediate. In the scenario of the client that was hit by ransomware, effectively, none of the endpoints were compromised. We were able to detect what the issue was via the AMP client, which discovered and alerted us to what the actual problem was. We then had to do a cleanup process on the remaining. It certainly showed its value to us and the client in that particular incident. It is hard to say how much time it saved us, because in that particular incident they only had a limited deployment. It actually took six man-days to solve the problem, but it didn't affect any of the AMP clients. It arguably could have taken even longer, had they not had AMP deployed on at least some of the assets. It's very simple: If they had had AMP on all of them, they would have probably avoided the problem in the first place. And they certainly wouldn't have needed six days to actually resolve the issue.

Cisco Threat Response accelerates Cisco Umbrella security operation functions. The abilities of Talos are definitely one of the reasons we bought into this as a product. It enables us to react more quickly. We're relying on Cisco providing that updated information in a timely fashion, and that obviously has a knock-on effect on our ability to support our clients if they've been compromised. That ability to push information automatically into Talos and their environment and then prove it's a problem or otherwise, and then update the system automatically, saves us an enormous amount of time. It gives us a lot of confidence in what we do, because Cisco is able to update things and do that part of the function for us, rather than our relying on in-house skills to try to determine what is good and what is bad.

We use it internally, in our business, to secure us, as we are an MSP, which means we are at particular risk. Obviously, we have a duty of care for our clients to ensure that we take the utmost responsibility and steps to secure our businesses and, in turn, secure our clients' businesses. The Cisco suite of security solutions definitely gives us a great deal of comfort that we are doing that. Relying on Cisco for those updates certainly takes a load off my mind, knowing that we've got the backing of Talos across the suite of products. We feel, with all the steps we have taken, that there are very few gaps in our security.

The solution has also made our team more effective by being able to focus on high-value initiatives. We have it integrated into our helpdesk system where it alerts us of things that are of particular concern. That minimizes the amount of time that we're looking at non-threatening situations. A lot of these systems can throw up an awful lot of information and you can end up spending an awful lot of time looking at things that aren't an issue — false positives. If we're able to target things more accurately, it helps us focus that high-cost engineering resource more accurately. It does save time and money.

Cisco AMP has definitely decreased our time to detection, relative to where we were with previous products. Before this type of next-gen solution, we were relying on things like antivirus, which is pretty poor and didn't produce much in the way of protection, certainly around ransomware and other things. We were relying heavily on perimeter protection, like firewalls. That was, of course, completely ineffective when people took their laptops home. The risk was great and we saw more people bringing problems back into the business. The AMP and Umbrella combination has made life a lot more secure and enables us to deliver consistent policy, which is the other important thing. When people are in our building, we've got a reasonably consistent policy because we have greater control. But the minute a person leaves the building and connects via a phone or at an internet cafe, we lose most of the traditional protection we had. The endpoint becomes everything.

The decrease in time to detection has been significant. It's very hard to put a percentage to it because, before it, we were often blissfully unaware that devices had a problem at all. It's given us visibility and we are much more effective. I'm guessing in terms of what it saves time-wise, because it's given us visibility that we otherwise didn't have, but I would say 80 percent, if I had to put a figure on it.

What is most valuable?

It has a number of valuable features. One of them is its ability to look across the estate. If somebody has been compromised, the question always is: How has it affected other devices in the network? Cisco AMP gives you a very neat view of that.

It has worked well where there have been compromises of clients and the software has automatically sent a sample to Cisco. Cisco has very quickly turned that around and an update has been issued and therefore, within an hour, all the devices are protected against it. We've been quite impressed with that.

We're a Cisco-centric organization. We use things like Cisco FirePOWER, the Next Gen features, as well as Umbrella portal and AMP. We've got a SIEM solution and we see all the events. It gives us a very good overall view of what's going on, very quickly.

We get all the alerts fed in centrally and it enables the security team to act upon them quickly. The alerts seem to be high-quality. We don't get an awful lot of false positives. With the dashboards it's clear, and you can understand quickly where the issues are, with instant responses.

The tools provided by the solution to help you investigate and mitigate threats are very helpful too. I'm the person who manages the engineers, so I don't use it on a day-to-day basis. I use it to get an overall view of, and a feeling for, where our various clients are in terms of issues: How secure they are, whether the engineers have been acting upon threats, etc. But our engineers like the product very much. The ability to detonate a particular problem in a sandbox environment and understand what the effects are, is helpful. We're trying, for example, to determine, when people send information in, if an attachment is legitimate or not. You just have to open it. If you can do that in a secure sandbox environment, that's an invaluable feature. What you would do otherwise would be very risky and tedious.

All our engineers have been very impressed with the features that it delivers and the fact that it has been low impact on the endpoints. It hasn't caused us any problems with performance. Generally, it's a very well-liked product amongst the engineering team.

What needs improvement?

Some of the dashboards don't always populate with data. Most of them do, but some of them don't. 

Another issue for me, that would be the greatest value of all, would be to make the security into a single pane of glass. Whilst these products are largely integrated from a Talos perspective, they're not integrated from a portal perspective. For example, we have to look at an Umbrella portal and a separate AMP portal. We also have to look at a separate portal for the firewalls. If I could wave a magic wand and have one thing, I would put all the Cisco products into one, simple management portal. If I were Cisco, that would be my greatest focus of all because it would be of such great value if I could give one pane of glass to an engineer and he could look across all the Cisco products. 

The other thing I would say to Cisco is they need to move more to a consumption model like Office 365, because I want to be able to sell it and deploy it by just adding things on to a particular client.

For example, you set a client up on the AMP portal, which I'm looking at as I speak. I have X number of clients. If I need to sell or deploy Umbrella, I've got to go through a completely different process and enter exactly the same sort of thing. I've got to create the client somewhere else, I've got to put the information somewhere else, and I've got to run the deployment from somewhere else. Whereas with the Office 365 model, I'm able to upgrade packages and add features and functionality all from the one place. That is an incredibly powerful selling tool.

The other area for improvement is to make billing simpler. The billing process for us is hard where we've got those two users. We've got to create a separate bill for those clients and we have to create a separate report to Cisco to say that we're billing those clients. Anything they could do to make that billing process more seamless would be of great value. If they could almost automate it, so that it is something that links in with accounts packages to make the billing process neater, it would help promote the sale of it and make it more profitable to sell. If someone deploys AMP For Endpoints on a client, at the moment that process is very disjointed. We've got to do a check once a month to see how many deployments there are relative to last month and, if we had to add one, we not only have to bill an extra one but we also have to buy an extra one from Cisco. And all that is manual.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Cisco AMP for Endpoints for three years, maybe more.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is very good. We've had no issues with performance or things crashing. That aspect has all been very positive. When doing as much as these products are doing, it can create quite an overhead and take a toll on the performance of PCs, but we have had none of that kind of experience.

We are predominantly a Microsoft environment. I'm aware that it supports Mac, but I don't think we have any installations across Mac environments at the moment. From a Windows standpoint, it works very well. It hasn't caused instability. It hasn't affected performance in a negative way. All those things are really positive, given what it's actually doing.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Without any question it's scalable. We've got it on as few as two, and as many as 250 or so clients. We don't have any questions about scalability.

How are customer service and technical support?

I've not personally used any support around this solution. I don't think we have needed to from an implementation perspective. It's all gone smoothly.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We used Sophos in the past. We're replacing it, so when the renewals come up we replace Sophos with AMP, wherever possible.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is quite simple. We needed a method of delivery and that's the hardest part. But the deployment and the actual tuning of it are relatively minimal, so that has been a good experience. We didn't have to mess about with performance tuning, whereas with other products we have to do quite a lot for excluding this, that, and the other directory, to make sure the performance is reasonable.

If it's a small environment, it's quick to set up because we've got closer management. But in bigger environments, we bump into the challenge — and this is not an AMP issue or an installation issue — of people who are away, or people who haven't restarted their machines. Those sorts of little things tend to be the things that are a little bit more of a pain to get the final installation done. But the rollout of AMP, per se, is quite straightforward. The setup time of AMP isn't an issue and it is quite acceptable. These types of problems would exist with whichever product was chosen.

In terms of an implementation strategy for this product, our security team is very comfortable with rolling it out. The sales process is that we define the client's needs, the number of devices that they intend to secure, and that goes to the security team to coordinate and roll out. That's a reasonably templated process now for us.

In our company, the security team is comprised of four people, and they are the people who primarily look after and manage the products. We also have a deployment team, another three or four people, who are the people that would ultimately push the client out to the various devices that need it.

What was our ROI?

Certainly, from a protection standpoint, we have seen ROI. It's doing what we want it to do and it's protecting us and the clients who have it installed. Neither they nor we have been compromised and that's the greatest testament of all.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We use the MSP model, so we're able to pay as we go. We report usage based on the actual usage, which is very handy. The old model of Cisco doing it was dated and archaic, and that goes for most of their products. The previous way they did it, which was that you bought something upfront for a certain period, was terrible because of the actual process of updating it. It wouldn't scale down and it was very hard to scale up. When you added users to the system, it wasn't easy to then add licenses to that particular agreement. It was really difficult, in fact; difficult to the point where we stopped selling it in that model, because it was just too problematic.

For example, if we had a user with 10 devices and they bought some more devices, so it went to, say, 15, getting an extra five licenses within their agreement was immensely hard. To me, the only way forward is the MSP model.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We looked at a number of different solutions: Carbon Black, Cylance, Sophos Intercept X and we liked the Cisco AMP solution over those products because it fit in neatly with the rest of the Cisco portfolio. We believe that the management of the various security products fit better with one manufacturer, rather than picking various manufacturers to try and manage a security solution.

The integration of Cisco Threat Response with Cisco Umbrella is getting a lot better. What we like, across the board, is that the solutions are backed by Talos, and Talos is the largest, independent, security-research and threat-hunting organization in the world. We like the fact that the protection is spread across the Cisco environment. That's where this set of products wins when compared to other vendors. It's not that other vendors, like Carbon Black and Cylance, aren't delivering good products. They're just not doing the whole suite. They're not providing the firewall, they're not providing the CASB solution like CloudLock. I'm not sure if they're doing DNS filtering yet; a lot of vendors are catching up on that. But effectively, when you get a known issue, Cisco have the ability to roll it out across a suite of products and therefore you get protection very quickly. So if you discover a problem in Cisco Umbrella, they can update that threat, where need be, in AMP. That's quite a unique selling point for Cisco.

What other advice do I have?

It's very simple to deploy, doesn't cause much in the way of management overhead, and does what it suggests. I would have no hesitation in recommending it. We obviously do, as we're selling it and have been using it for a number of years.

Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor. The reviewer's company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner.
Dominic Parke
Information Technology Manager at a financial services firm with 11-50 employees
Real User
We have peace of mind knowing there is an additional layer of security protecting our endpoints

Pros and Cons

  • "Morphisec stops attacks without needing to know what type of threat it is, just that it is foreign. It is based on injections, so it would know when a software launches. If a software launches and something else also launches, then it would count that as anomalous and block it. Because the software looks at the code, and if it executes something else that is not related, then Morphisec would block it. That is how it works."
  • "Right now, it's just their auto-update feature. I know they are currently working on that. When they release a new version of the threat prevention platform, I do have to update that, rolling out to every computer. They have said, "From version 5, you would be able to do an auto-update." While this is very minor, that is the only thing that I would say needs to be upgraded. It would just make life a lot easier for other IT teams. However, I have simplified the process, so all I need to do is just download one file."

What is our primary use case?

I use it mainly as an additional layer of security since we have quite a lot of servers. I have unblocked a couple of things that got filtered out, and it worked great. We are a small company, not a really large firm.

We were on-prem before, but now we are on a SaaS service that they provide, which is hosted through AWS. This makes it easier for me to access from any location. I can also have Morphisec lock it down to a specific IP for allowing me to get into the system. I would need to be on a computer within the network in order to access the AWS site. 

How has it helped my organization?

They provide some information about security events from Microsoft Defender. I know recently when there was that Print Nightmare issue, they did release an email saying, "We are aware of this, and Morphisec is basically on it as well." So, they don't release just random little Microsoft stuff. They would release any major breaches and ransomware. This is where they would notify clients that Morphisec has been updated already to block these things. This is definitely important to us. I am usually up-to-date on all these things. However, if I don't hear from my software vendor, I would be a little bit worried, "Are they blocking it? Is this something that will be blocked? Are they looking into it?" So, it is good to be informed on these things.

Morphisec stops attacks without needing to know what type of threat it is, just that it is foreign. It is based on injections, so it would know when a software launches. If a software launches and something else also launches, then it would count that as anomalous and block it. Because the software looks at the code, and if it executes something else that is not related, then Morphisec would block it. That is how it works.

Most of the alerts that we have gotten are for legitimate stuff. They have typically been for logins and stuff that users might try to install, e.g., WebEx or some background Google update, so we block them. We have been working internally to block the use of plugins and stuff. It's not that they are fake; they are real notifications. It is just that we have to restrict certain access to certain browsers.

It reduces two alerts every month. It is not so much. We have locked down a lot of things, like our internal group policies. In this way, we don't have to run into any random alerts developed in other people's software for a lot of little things, which we noticed that we can immediately remediate. We have Morphisec doing its real job versus just blocking tiny little programs that don't matter to it. We just have it there as a layer of security on top of our layer of security policies that we already have. I don't think it's going to really catch a lot of stuff, but if something were to happen, it is the backup. That is why we have it.

Every month we get a security report, which tells us, "These are all the things that it scanned, and these are the things that it blocked." 99% of the time, there won't be a lot of stuff, but it gives us an executive report at the end of the month. I usually review it just to make sure that things are okay, e.g., any machines that we might have replaced, need to get rid of, or archive. That is really all I would really look at the security report for. Because if I were to get something like a threat, I won't see it at the end of the month. I see it right away.

Morphisec makes it super easy for our IT team to prevent breaches of critical systems. It is a one-click install, then it takes care of the rest. If we have to evaluate anything, they will notify us. After it has been prevented, we can jump in and release it or create a new rule. Then, if it gets deployed, it gets deployed to all our endpoints. It is really simple for the amount of stuff that they actually do.

What is most valuable?

As far as threat prevention goes, it does great. There have been a couple of preventions that it blocked from browsers and stuff. From time to time, Google may try to install something through the use of a plugin and it blocks that out. 

The dashboard is really easy to use. It is not super convoluted, which is great.

Like any other threat prevention platform, this one is mostly specific to memory attacks. That is what I really like about it. I get emails if there are any threats. 

What needs improvement?

Right now, it's just their auto-update feature. I know they are currently working on that. When they release a new version of the threat prevention platform, I do have to update that, rolling out to every computer. They have said, "From version 5, you would be able to do an auto-update." While this is very minor, that is the only thing that I would say needs to be upgraded. It would just make life a lot easier for other IT teams. However, I have simplified the process, so all I need to do is just download one file.

For how long have I used the solution?

At my company, we have been using Morphisec for about three years.

I have been using it since last November, which is when I took over from the previous IT manager and was introduced to Morphisec. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability seems great. There is literally no downtime that I have ever noticed.

There is no maintenance. Morphisec does everything. As long as the endpoint is connected to the dashboard, which is hosted online, then there is nothing that I need to do besides just making sure that it has Internet access on my side, which is how it gets updates.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scaling is very simple. We just have to add a new computer, then install Morphisec. There is really nothing else to do.

There's only two users who have access to it: a backup admin and me. In the event that something were to happen to me, the backup admin could still get into it, but I am the most active admin on the account. I usually make sure everything is up and the devices are checking in. I just check it from time to time to make sure that all the devices are cleaned up and archived. Since we have been replacing computers, I want to make sure that they are not going to be showing up in our list as offline devices if they were replaced. I just have to remove them and archive it.

How are customer service and technical support?

I contacted their tech support once, when I was deploying the software. I just had to update an IP, and that was it. It was pretty fast. I have a direct contact with their support tech, and even our account manager. I can send issues to them, then they will forward them to their tech support team. They get back to you within an hour, and they are in different time zones. Time-wise, in terms of getting back to you, it is pretty fast.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We previously used Carbon Black. We switched to Morphisec because Carbon Black had a lot of false positives. Based on my knowledge, it was really noisy for stuff that really didn't matter. So, Carbon Black was not the best choice.

How was the initial setup?

When I came in, my company was on an older version, so I had to roll out a newer version. It was literally a migration. We moved from the on-prem server to the cloud. I had to do that from scratch. It really was just Morphisec saying, "This is your new link. There is an installer. You can either install it on all your computers one by one or you can script it out." They provide all the information. Therefore, whenever a computer signs in, it would just install the program and point it to the new server.

The migration took a few seconds. Once I have set it up, all I have to do is wait for people to turn their computers on. Then, I can see them start populating inside of the new dashboard. It was just a waiting game for whenever the CPAs would turn their computers on and log in.

We are in a domain, so all our computers are managed by user accounts. We can set specific rules, e.g., when a user logs in, this happens. So, I set up a rule that would install the new version of Morphisec when a user logs in. Then, I just have to wait for them to log in from wherever they are.

Before, we had to manually install it. However, I am a believer in automating things and doing things a lot faster. So, I was able to roll it out to every computer, even making sure that we had it on all our computers by using their built-in, automatic deployment.

I get emails if I have to set up anything.

What about the implementation team?

I met the guys from the support team and also used a program to deploy it.

Deployment was done in-house. My main thing was that I didn't want to have any computers being missed. It was all done on a one-to-one basis, where the guy would go to every computer and install it. So, installing it would be policy. I know Morphisec would reach out to every single computer, as long as it is joined to the domain. That was my main strategy when rolling it out to everybody. Once it popped up, I made sure the numbers matched up to know whether Morphisec was on every computer on the domain.

What was our ROI?

It is more of a peace of mind. We know that we have an additional layer of security that is protecting our endpoints, since we are working remotely for certain things. We have the threat prevention platform. 80% of our stuff is based on security materials, because of the data that we work with day-to-day. Having Morphisec made us a little bit more comfortable knowing that our servers are not going to get hacked by any random stuff. However, if it does get hacked, then Morphisec will prevent it.

Morphisec has reduced the amount of time that we spend investigating false positives. It gives me the breakdown of where things originated from. It is easy for me to identify whether it is a false positive or not. Most of the stuff is legitimate. So, I have never had to deal with a false positive block.

The solution has reduced our team’s workload. We don't have to really go in, look at stuff, and monitor a dashboard. There is something we set that will notify us. We just have it getting sent to our mailbox. Therefore, if we get an email, we would know (at that stage) that something is going on.

I know my organization was paying a lot more for the previous software that they used through an MSP. It was charged per user and cost quite a bit to use per endpoint.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I don't have to purchase any additional licenses, unless I go over. I have a license limit of 80. Whenever we renew our contract, if we have gone over that amount, then we will get billed for that amount.

Our licensing is tied into our contract. Because we have a long-term contract, our pricing is a little bit lower. It is per year, so we don't get charged per endpoint, but we do have a cap. Our cap is 80 endpoints. If we were to go over 80, when we renewed our contract, which is not until three years are over. Then, they would reevaluate, and say, "Well, you have more than 80 devices active right now. This is going to be the price change." They know that we are installing and replacing computers, so the numbers will be all over the place depending on whether you archive or don't archive, which is the reason why we just have to keep up on that stuff.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

The two main contenders were Carbon Black and Morphisec. We made a decision between those two. We had two trials, where they were trialed them on different machines. Morphisec was more detailed. Morphisec was detecting stuff that was correct versus Carbon Black, which mostly just protecting literally every little thing that you do but not really malicious at all nor causing a memory issue. Morphisec was a little bit more real-time with real stuff versus just a bunch of anomalous stuff. Though, I think Carbon Black learns as it goes. 

Morphisec has helped us to save money on our security stack. Considering other platforms that we have gotten quotes from and other platforms that I have looked into, based on our initial investment into it, it has saved us quite a lot of money on external and internal devices that we would have needed to purchase from other vendors. Right now, it is saving us anywhere between the range of $9,000 to $20,000 per year, because we put a lot of money on security. We house a lot of sensitive information, so we can't afford to go around something. That would put all our clients' information at risk.

We use Morphisec as one of our security artillery platforms. We have other software that we use for security threats, so Morphisec is not the only one. Morphisec is probably around the second stack. We have our main threat prevention software that we rolled out, and after that is Morphisec. After Morphisec is our DNS filtering. 

What other advice do I have?

Read the instructions. They literally tell you everything you need to do. Just make sure that you know what Morphisec is before getting into it, because it is not an antivirus. They have a feature that binds with Windows Defender. Windows Defender is an antivirus and Morphisec is more of unified threat prevention for memory attacks. So, you still need to have an antivirus.

Morphisec is a security platform. The things that it does are better for companies who have sensitive information that they don't want to risk getting out. If they have Morphisec, they can feel safe that their stuff is protected.

I would rate it 10 out of 10. It is a great program. We will definitely be renewing it when our renewal period is closer.

Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
AT
Chief Security Officer at a financial services firm with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 20
Protects employees wherever they are and offers visibility into what machines need patching, but the deployment process needs improvement

Pros and Cons

  • "The OverWatch is the most valuable feature to me. It's a 24x7 monitoring service, and when they see anything suspicious in my environment, they will investigate."
  • "If we have a dashboard capability to uninstall agents, I think that would be great."

What is our primary use case?

We have several use cases including threat management, EDR, AV, and a SOC with 24x7 monitoring.

How has it helped my organization?

The fact that CrowdStrike is a cloud-native solution is very important. We don't have to deal with any upgrades on the appliances or console. The only thing we have to deal with is the upgrade of the agents. The SaaS model works very well for smaller companies like us.

The flexibility and always-on protection that is provided by a cloud-based solution are important to us. The cloud is everywhere. So, with the agent on the laptop, wherever the user may go, including home, office, or traveling, it's protected 24x7, all the time. That's what we require and this is what we got.

We haven't had cases where we have quarantined any material stuff yet, because we are relatively small and we don't see a lot of malware in our environment. In this regard, it has been relatively quiet.

In terms of its ability to prevent breaches, if you look at the cyber kill chain, the sooner you detect malicious activity, the better you are in responding as opposed to waiting for a data breach. I think CrowdStrike is capable of identifying malicious activity throughout the whole cyber kill chain. Step one is establishing when they have a foothold in the environment, and then detect whether they are moving laterally. The sooner they are discovered, the better we are at stopping data breaches.

CrowdStrike has definitely reduced our risk of data breaches. It reduces the risk of ransomware and it gives us comfort that someone is watching our back.

We had some end-of-life workstations that were running Windows 7 and for some reason, related to PCI compliance, CrowdStrike rejected them. This helped us in terms of maintaining our PCI compliance.

What is most valuable?

The OverWatch is the most valuable feature to me. It's a 24x7 monitoring service, and when they see anything suspicious in my environment, they will investigate. Essentially, they're an extension of my team and I like that. We're a small company and we only have a base of approximately 260 employees. As such, we cannot afford to hire skilled security people. So this makes sense for a smaller company like us.

There is a helpful feature to look into the vulnerability of the endpoint, which allows us to see which PCs have been patched and which ones have not. That helps my team to focus on those PCs that require their attention.

What needs improvement?

The deployment process is an area that needs to be improved. For some reason, CrowdStrike does not provide any help in terms of how to deploy the agent in a more efficient manner. They just don't provide the support there, which leaves their customers to figure out how to push agents out, either through GPO or through BigFix or through SCCM, and there was no support on that side. Not being able to complete the deployment in an efficient manner is one of the huge weaknesses.

It would be good if they had a feature to remove agents. We're in a transaction processing environment and if CrowdStrike is affecting a transaction processing server, we need to uninstall that agent pretty fast. Right now, the uninstall has to be done manually, which is not great. If we have a dashboard capability to uninstall agents, I think that would be great.

The dashboard seems a little bit too clunky in the sense that it's spread out in so many ways that if you don't log in on a daily basis, you're going to forget where things are. They can do a better job in organizing the dashboard.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for approximately five months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I haven't had any issues for five months since we've installed it, which is good to know. No users have complained about any CPU spikes or false positives, which we like.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

If you have a way to deploy agents in a rapid manner, I think the scalability is there. As we buy and acquire companies, we have to roll out agents to those places. Right now, it's still very manually intensive and it slows down the process a lot. So, I think the scalability can be improved with a rapid deployment feature.

Our strategy right now is just to install CrowdStrike for PCs and laptops. Once we get comfortable with the technology, we can start testing the servers. It's just that we haven't finished the deployment to PCs and workstations yet.

We have approximately 260 endpoints and we're probably about 20% complete in terms of deployment.

How are customer service and technical support?

We've raised support tickets such as the request for rapid deployment capabilities. However, we only received responses to the effect that they do not support anything like it. In that regard, the support has not been great.

That said, we don't use the support site a lot because we haven't had any issues with CrowdStrike. So, I can't say much about that.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Prior to CrowdStrike, we used Carbon Black Threat Hunter.

There is a huge difference between the two products. CrowdStrike is quiet. I think that Carbon Black Threat Hunter just locks everything that has to do with the endpoint. You generate a lot of noise, but it means nothing. Whereas CrowdStrike is more about real threats and we haven't seen much from it.

On the other hand, with Carbon Black Threat Hunter, we were able to deploy pretty fast and we could uninstall agents pretty quickly from the dashboard.

I had originally heard about CrowdStrike Falcon from my peers. A lot of CSOs that I have roundtable discussions with speak highly about it.

How was the initial setup?

The sensor deployment is a manual process right now, where we have to log into every workstation, every server, and install it manually. It's very time-consuming.

It's an ongoing process across our organization.

What about the implementation team?

One of our security engineers is in charge of deployment. However, we don't have someone on it full time. He works on this when he has time available, so we probably only have one-third of a person working on it.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We completed a PoC using the trial version, and it was pretty easy to do. It took us less than an hour to deploy. It was just a matter of downloading a trial agent and setting it up.

Having the trial version was important because the easier the PoC is, the better the chances are of us buying the tool.

At approximately 40% more, Falcon is probably too expensive compared to Cisco AMP and Cylance, although that is because of the OverWatch feature. If you took out the OverWatch feature then they should be about the same. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fee.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We evaluated other products including Cisco AMP and Cylance. Neither of these products has the Overwatch feature that CrowdStrike has. The reason why we chose CrowdStrike was that we need to have 24x7 monitoring of our endpoints. That's the main difference.

In terms of ease of use, CrowdStrike is not so great. Cisco AMP has a better, cleaner dashboard and they're more mature in the way that you navigate. It's as though they have spent time getting customers to click on features and then figured out which is the quickest way to get to what you want, whereas CrowdStrike is not there in that sense.

Cylance is even better in terms of ease of use. They dumb it down to only a small number of menus and dashboards. There are probably only five dashboards that I look at on Cylance, whereas with CrowdStrike, I have to look at many.

What other advice do I have?

My advice for anybody who is considering CrowdStrike is definitely to start with a PoC, and then definitely to subscribe to OverWatch. I think that OverWatch is the main benefit to it.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from CrowdStrike is about the different threats that are out there. They have a nice dashboard with information about threats, and you can read it and learn from it.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
Nirav Kumar
Cyber Security Specialist at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Automated Investigation and Response reduces workload of our SOC analysts, but lacks integration customization

Pros and Cons

  • "One of the features which differentiates it from other EDR providers is the Automated Investigation and Response, which reduces the workload of SOC analysts or engineers. They don't have to manually investigate each and every alert on the endpoint, since it does so automatically. And you can automate the investigation part."
  • "Other vendors provide a lot of customization when it comes to integration, which every big organization requires. No big organization depends on one particular tool. Defender lacks that at this point."

What is our primary use case?

We use it for endpoint detection and response.

The agent is installed on the endpoint, on the laptop or desktop, but it's a SaaS solution.

How has it helped my organization?

One feature that has proven beneficial is the Threat and Vulnerability Management module of Defender for Endpoint, which provides information on the vulnerability of all the endpoints. We don't have to run active scans via network scanners. It is built-in. That has proven to be helpful, although we're still in the early phases. We have identified vulnerabilities that were in our organization for too long and nobody knew about those machines and the vulnerabilities on them. From a vulnerability remediation point of view, it has been quite helpful to us.

What is most valuable?

One of the features which differentiates it from other EDR providers is the Automated Investigation and Response, which reduces the workload of SOC analysts or engineers. They don't have to manually investigate each and every alert on the endpoint, since it does so automatically. And you can automate the investigation part.

In addition, there are several features that have helped to improve our security posture at the prevention level, such as the attack surface reduction controls and the exploit prevention control. The attack surface reduction comes with the solution, out-of-the-box. There is Application Control as well, which is kind of difficult to implement, but once you are through the pain of designing and implementing it, it is one of the very good features to have. These tools are some of the things that are missing from other vendors' products, as I have worked with McAfee, Symantec and Carbon Black.

What needs improvement?

One area for improvement is that, because it comes out-of-the-box, it does not interact well with many applications we have developed in-house. There is no way to exclude them because it interacts with everything on the endpoint. One of the issues is lagging: the in-house-developed applications suffer from this and they become slow. For a big enterprise, it is important that they include a feature so that we can exclude these applications.

Another area where it could be improved is that, while it collects a lot of data, it misses some data, which is important, such as the hardware version of the endpoint and the AV signature version. I think this improvement is in the Microsoft pipeline already but it is not in the solution yet.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for around one and a half years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It has been quite stable up until now. It does not break. Microsoft is developing on it quite frequently and more and more features are coming in, but overall it is quite stable. It does not break that often.

As we have moved away from Microsoft Defender Antivirus and to the EDR solution, we have seen very few issues so far that users have faced with this. There have been very occasional performance issues for some users, but they have been very rare.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is one thing which, I think, Microsoft is working on, because it is not yet very scalable. What it provides out-of-the-box is all it has. Any big organization needs customization, but the customization of it and running customized things on top of it are areas where it is lagging. That something Microsoft needs to work on. Examples include running custom playbooks or customizing the events which it is collecting.

We are protecting 100,000 endpoints with this solution. We may increase usage, but there is no plan for that as of yet.

How are customer service and technical support?

Microsoft technical support is good.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Before Microsoft Defender for Endpoint we had Carbon Black. But when I came onboard, Defender for Endpoint had already been chosen.

How was the initial setup?

The setup process is not very complex, but it is also not very straightforward. It depends what solutions you have. If you have everything set up, which is usually the case for big organizations, then it is pretty smooth. But if there are some things that are not set up properly in the organization, like certain parts of the infra or the cloud onboarding, then it becomes cumbersome, not the installation part, but in setting up the backend which it needs.

Our implementation strategy was that we started with a few pilot machines, to onboard Defender for Endpoint. We noticed that we had around 70 to 80 percent failures. It was a learning phase and we identified the root cause of those failures. There are some settings in Defender AV that need tweaking when you want to onboard Defender for Endpoint. We struggled to tweak those settings, but once that was done, it went pretty smoothly for the next couple of pilots. Then we encountered another roadblock which was related to an OS version dependency.

Overall, it took us about one month to onboard the solution, but we are weak in infra.

What about the implementation team?

We had our consultant from Microsoft for the implementation. The engagement went on for three to four months. But one thing we noticed from this project was that it did not need a consultant. It was not that difficult to do. Maybe we did not get an expert consultant because, for solving issues, he also took time.

In addition to doing onboarding, we wanted our third-party integrations, but that was something they could not do because they were Microsoft. We had to do that ourselves. Over that three or four months, we realized that we didn't need them.

Microsoft consultancy is good and bad. If you get good consultants, they are really good. But sometimes you get consultants who are not expert enough in their domains and you don't get enough from them.

What was our ROI?

We have not seen ROI yet, but we are hopeful that in the future it will provide that.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

One of the differences between other solutions I have used and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is that the latter is not yet enterprise-ready to the same extent that the other vendors are. Other vendors provide a lot of customization when it comes to integration, which every big organization requires. No big organization depends on one particular tool. Defender lacks that at this point.

What other advice do I have?

Defender for Endpoint is marketed as an endpoint detection and response tool, but for others who are looking at onboarding it, they should take it as a holistic tool that provides AV, EDR, and vulnerability management all in one. However, it does not provide very good integration with third parties.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Get our free report covering CrowdStrike, Microsoft, SentinelOne, and other competitors of Carbon Black CB Defense. Updated: November 2021.
554,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.