We compared CylancePROTECT and VMware Carbon Black Endpoint based on our users reviews in five parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: CylancePROTECT offers a quick and easy setup process, a user-friendly dashboard, and strong AI-based protection. However, users have raised concerns about its pricing, the user-friendliness of the dashboard, and the lack of control over agent installation. In contrast, VMware Carbon Black Endpoint provides continuous monitoring and threat detection, along with strong integration capabilities and reliable performance. However, there are areas where it can improve, such as enhancing client performance, improving the user interface, and delivering faster response times. Furthermore, CylancePROTECT's technical support is perceived as slow, while VMware Carbon Black Endpoint's support receives mixed reviews.
"This is stable and scalable."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"It is stable and scalable."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"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"
"Two or three years ago when the WannaCry virus struck, the people that were on Cylance were the ones that weren't affected."
"Blackberry Protect offers endpoint protection. It's easy to deploy. It's scalable and stable."
"It secures different entry points into the network."
"The most functional item that we use is the process to turn off the false flags that it causes."
"Has good RAM capacity for the power I need"
"The solution is very quick at easily changing the levels of protection for each computer and the server."
"The non-daily requirement to update signatures is the most valuable feature. From a functional point of view, it is pretty spot on. For instance, we compared an algorithm from five years ago to today's algorithm, and it was 98% accurate. It has the ability to detect and mitigate. In the industrial environment that we work in, there's what we call OT versus IT. You are IT Central, but this is OT. Generally, we don't have the same level of skillset as IT individuals or IT professionals have. This particular product doesn't require you to be a computer scientist to be able to understand its proprietary algorithm and to be able to deploy, use, and work within it. It integrates well with a robust SIEM or SOAR solution, and it plays nice with others. We use other detection solutions like CyberX or site provision with Cisco, and it plays nice. That's one of the things we really liked about it."
"It is extremely simple to manage and deploy."
"I found it very valuable as a whole. It is good at detecting anything and has kept us very safe. It is also very easy to use."
"What I like the most about it is the dynamic grouping, where you get to group endpoints based on setup criteria. That's pretty cool. I like the simplified policy management and simplified white-listing process."
"This product has the capability of uploading scripts to the tool and this is a very comprehensive feature."
"Carbon Black has very good market strategies."
"The product is pretty strong in terms of security and their features are very good in that respect."
"The best feature of this solution is that we have a live response, which is really tailored to our needs."
"The software uses very few resources; it is almost invisible to the end user."
"There's lots of very useful documentation online to help troubleshoot and learn about the product."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"Detections could be improved."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"The user interface is outdated."
"It should have better support for Windows and Mac."
"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."
"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."
"The solution needs better dashboards that are easier to use."
"I would like to see them fix the alerting system so that the endpoint reporting is a bit more streamlined."
"The process of whitelisting a script that you want to be able to run can be a little bit difficult, or awkward."
"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's stability could be improved."
"The directions for Splunk are spot on, but it is difficult to find anything on integration with AlienVault,"
"As far as I know, Carbon Defense has nothing that can be installed on mobile devices. It lacks a defense solution for mobile devices, especially mobile tablets. I would like to see support for mobile devices and the pricing should be less than the pricing for a normal workstation."
"The support is poor."
"Occasionally, we'll have issues with the latest version and they'll basically tell us that they will improve it in the next iteration. They need to work on their version release quality."
"There could be more knowledge. I think they made a mistake when they took away the Check Point integration, because it provides more automation and also more threat intelligence."
"The EDR portion could be better. I'm not a big fan, but it works."
"Carbon Black has limited capability to integrate with Rapid7."
CylancePROTECT is ranked 27th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 39 reviews while VMware Carbon Black Endpoint is ranked 17th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 61 reviews. CylancePROTECT is rated 8.0, while VMware Carbon Black Endpoint is rated 8.0. 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 VMware Carbon Black Endpoint writes "Centralization via the cloud allows us to protect and control people working from home". CylancePROTECT is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Fortinet FortiClient, whereas VMware Carbon Black Endpoint is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trend Micro Deep Security, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager. See our CylancePROTECT vs. VMware Carbon Black 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.