We compared Microsoft Defender for Endpoint 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: The reviews suggest that Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is commended for its simple installation process, seamless integration with Windows, and effective detection and correlation of threats. However, it may suffer from a lack of clarity in its licensing model and limitations in its user interface, security features, and customization options. On the other hand, VMware Carbon Black Endpoint may present a more challenging initial setup and higher pricing. Nevertheless, it offers advanced functionalities, robust protection against attacks, extensive integration possibilities, and a highly acclaimed EDR capability. It is noted that improvements are needed in terms of management, graphical user interface, compatibility, and technical support. Overall, both products possess their individual strengths and weaknesses.
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"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."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"I enjoy using the live response feature, which allows me to remotely access different endpoints and investigate malicious files, such as malware that people may have downloaded, and other related issues."
"The endpoint detection of threats is valuable. The initial detection of things like ransomware and viruses and being able to shut down machines immediately and stop a threat is valuable. We can stop a threat at a source versus allow it to propagate it across the network."
"Because it has been integrated with the OS, we get the entire software inventories, and we even get access to the registries. Those are the primary features."
"I like Defender's reporting and logging features. The email alerts are also helpful. It's hard sometimes to sift through the email, especially if you're an IT firm managing hundreds if not thousands of endpoints, but we find email reporting useful. For example, last Tuesday, we learned of new vulnerabilities that were discovered as a result of the previous patches. The endpoints without those patches triggered alerts in Defender."
"I find the vulnerability management section of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint to be very useful for organizations."
"The protection that it provides is quite good."
"Defender provides useful alerts and groups them. It sends an alert to your portal if it detects any malicious activity, and you can group multiple alerts to form an incident."
"We have very good visibility on our endpoints. The level of information it throws back is helpful."
"The whole purpose of the product, like application control, is very good, and also if you need to update some policies, it works well and instantly."
"It has the best live response feature."
"I feel that the initial setup was straightforward and not complex."
"It is stable and easy to set up."
"It has intelligent learning behind it and we have been very successful in preventing attacks."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup was straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is one of the best EDR tools in the market."
"The product is pretty strong in terms of security and their features are very good in that respect."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"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."
"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."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The system can always be simplified and have a better integration check. More detailed reports would be good. When it does the integrated check, it just shows if the system is okay but I want to know what happened."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is not as robust, and you cannot customize it much, so that's a challenge."
"I would like to see integrations with other products, such as Spunk and other CM solutions. That would create possibilities for me, and for a SOC, to consolidate all events in an older console, not one provided by Microsoft but provided by a third party, and use it to create more insights."
"Integration with third-party vendors could be better. It would be better if it integrates with other protection solutions or other products outside of Microsoft. Nowadays, anti-virus protection doesn't really have to be planned as overall protection for your environment in terms of security. There are really different avenues that bad actors can take to wreak havoc on your machine."
"It can get a bit laggy sometimes. Other than that, we don't have any issues. They constantly tweak it and fix it up based on users' feedback. It has improved a lot over the past four years. Defender for Endpoint never really used to be a good endpoint security solution, but over the past couple of years, Microsoft has invested heavily in it. So, it has come a long way in all aspects of endpoint security. If they want to make it better, they should just continue investing in the current path of what they've been doing over the past couple of years."
"Defender's cloud integration could be improved."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can improve by making the reporting faster. It takes some time to reflect back to the administration portal of what has been updated. For example, out of 100 Computers, approximately 90 computers received updates, but when you check the administration portal over one or two days, you will only see 75, even though 90 were updated."
"The price, in general, could always be a little bit cheaper."
"Carbon Black has limited capability to integrate with Rapid7."
"The solution needs better overall compatibility with other products."
"At this point, we're test-bedding several other providers right now to see if there's anything that does equally or better and that comes at a better price point."
"What was rolled out to my company are mixed versions of Carbon Black CB Defense, so what I'd like to see in the next release is more synchronization, where it can detect the endpoint that's running an old version and suggest updates."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The device control feature could also be compatible with the user’s profile as well."
"When you view the triage, it will show you everything within a given time frame, and not only the attack that caused the alert, which is what I want to see. It shows you all the events during that time, and that can be quite confusing."
"I'm not sure as to the logic of how we've decided to customize it. We've only really used it since February and therefore there may be more to do on that front. That's why it's hard to say if something is missing or if we just aren't utilizing it."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 182 reviews while VMware Carbon Black Endpoint is ranked 17th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 61 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0, while VMware Carbon Black Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". 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". Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Fortinet FortiClient, whereas VMware Carbon Black Endpoint is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Trend Micro Deep Security, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Symantec Endpoint Security and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. VMware Carbon Black Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.
