We compared CylancePROTECT and Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response based on our users reviews in five parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Based on the reviews, it can be concluded that CylancePROTECT offers easy setup and strong protection, which gives it an advantage over Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response. However, CylancePROTECT is criticized for its pricing, lack of control over agent installation, instability, and poor performance. On the other hand, Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response has comprehensive capabilities and is easy to use, which gives it an advantage. However, it is criticized for compatibility issues, complexity for entry-level users, lack of a centralized dashboard and reporting features, and inadequate technical support services. In summary, CylancePROTECT is more suitable for users who value straightforward setup and strong protection, while Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is a better choice for users who prioritize comprehensive capabilities and ease of use.
"It is stable and scalable."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The stability is very good."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The solution is efficient."
"Immediately we can pick up the computers in the network if any malicious operation that is triggered."
"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."
"For me, the technical support is good."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"The most valuable features of CylancePROTECT are its powerful machine-learning capabilities and predictive intelligence."
"Even if an endpoint loses connection to the Internet, I know that endpoint is protected against 99.99% of the threats in the wild today."
"It actively monitors the behavior and activity of processes and will, without hesitation, terminate at root anything it determines to be suspect."
"I find the actual overall endpoint malware protection the most valuable feature of CylancePROTECT."
"It secures different entry points into the network."
"The most valuable features are script blocking and macros within Word documents for stopping unwanted applications from running in the background."
"It handles situations that the other threat management tools wouldn't find. It has worked well covering the weaker sides of the other products that we're integrating."
"The most functional item that we use is the process to turn off the false flags that it causes."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"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."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"I feel that the product lacks reporting features and needs improvement."
"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."
"The deployment on individual endpoints is more geared toward larger organizations. It might prove to be a bit too complicated for a smaller organization. You need to know what you're doing when you're deploying the sensor."
"It initially took some time to deploy."
"The integration with Microsoft solutions and Microsoft capabilities needs to be improved."
"While the product is very good, there are still some areas for improvement. The initial triage area could be a bit simpler. They get into the weeds real fast; it gets very detailed very fast. I am still looking for an easier triage layer on top with the ability to dig deeper."
"Ad hoc higher-level reporting to senior management can be improved or can be implemented. That's definitely an area of improvement that they need to focus on."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"The product needs to continue to offer better alerts. In particular, around false positives. It needs to reduce them from happening."
"Work on the math model. We are catching a lot of false positives, which gets to be a pain at the start of a deployment."
"The company that sells us the licenses sometimes doesn't know how to do certain things."
"It needs real analysis of quarantined files. The EDR product isn't showing much right now."
"The AI of CylancePROTECT has room for improvement. I'm on a trial license of SentinelOne, and its AI is much better than what's on CylancePROTECT."
"I would say one thing that they might need to bring in is protection for mobile devices."
"I would like to see a better UI in terms of sifting through more specific data and providing analytics. A little bit more would be nice."
"It is hard to manage."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 42nd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 19 reviews while CylancePROTECT is ranked 27th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 39 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while CylancePROTECT 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 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". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Darktrace and Deep Instinct Prevention Platform, whereas CylancePROTECT is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Micro Deep Security. See our Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. CylancePROTECT 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.