We performed a comparison between Cybereason Deep Respond [EOL] and VMware Carbon Black Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about VMware, ServiceNow, IBM and others in Security Incident Response."We have 20,000 endpoints in our organization. It's very critical to monitor each and every device with any of our solutions. By deploying Cybereason, it collects all the information from every computer and it will feed it to the AI engine and do a malware check. It's very clear cut and we save a lot of time. It detects the problem very quickly and we can prevent an issue before it occurs."
"It is nice when you're in a situation where you think someone's device is compromised and that there's some malware getting into your fleet."
"We also took full advantage of its incident response reporting capabilities to act as a “black box” for our infrastructure around strings of suspicious activity. The reporting and incident response capabilities were incredibly helpful during active security concerns."
"Integration and scalability are the most valuable."
"Setting up and managing the setup for this solution is okay. It is stable, scalable, and it runs just fine. No issues with technical support."
"The most valuable feature of VMware Carbon Black Cloud is the possibility of securing any PC worldwide."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to seek out abnormal activity and to create alerts."
"The most valuable features are the threat-hunting and the batch console."
"For setup, the server can be given to you as a VM image and with minimal configuration needed."
"It's all on the analysis part. They currently support from email only. If we have a problem with Cybereason like high memory utilization, for example, we send an email to their team and they respond when they see it, but there is no on-call support. They don't offer the ability to call them."
"It's not simple."
"We are subscribed to FS-ISAC threat indicator, but have been unsuccessful in adding it to our alliance feeds."
"They need to improve the batch console. It needs more capabilities. We are limited by the ones it provides..."
"Additionally, it is complex to use, and the pricing should be improved."
"It's not highly available, so you have to have a core server. If the primary server goes down, you need a new one. It's not available at the same time, however. It's not automatically swapped from one server to another."
"One area for improvement is the maturity of its vulnerability features."
"Setup is incredibly complex and poorly documented. Every time an upgrade was needed we would need to engage Professional Services for troubleshooting help. Certificates and web services proved to be the most significant sticking points. Since the product runs on a Linux platform, perhaps having staff with more Linux experience could have alleviated some difficulty."
"The dashboard should be more user-friendly."
Earn 20 points
Cybereason Deep Respond [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Security Incident Response while VMware Carbon Black Cloud is ranked 2nd in Security Incident Response with 18 reviews. Cybereason Deep Respond [EOL] is rated 8.0, while VMware Carbon Black Cloud is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cybereason Deep Respond [EOL] writes "Detects a problem very quickly and enables us to prevent an issue before it occurs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware Carbon Black Cloud writes " Shows promise for endpoint detection and response, with room for improvement in complexity and pricing ". Cybereason Deep Respond [EOL] is most compared with , whereas VMware Carbon Black Cloud is most compared with VMware Carbon Black Endpoint, Fidelis Elevate, Splunk SOAR and Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR.
See our list of best Security Incident Response vendors.
We monitor all Security Incident Response 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.