We performed a comparison between Check Point Harmony Endpoint and CylancePROTECT based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"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"
"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."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"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."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Its stability during any heavy performance activity is excellent."
"The most valuable feature of Check Point Harmony Endpoint is centralized management."
"One of the strengths of Harmony is its power to detect threats and keep us safe."
"The most valuable feature is the Zero-day protection, which covers our on-premises users, and well as those users who are outside of our network."
"The license plans are also very nice and distributed - allowing for a separation between types of users with more basic or more advanced options."
"The zero-day threat prevention is excellent."
"In terms of network usage, it actually reduced the amount of malicious attacks that we had. Before, we really didn't have a secure network. Each endpoint had to protect itself and probably most of them were not actually protected. Now, it's an entire process in which we've been able to cut down significantly the amount of malicious attacks by 60 percent that we get in the organization. It helps us to adequately monitor what has been going on with our network traffic and stopping individual attacks from accessing certain sites where we want to have restrictions or limitations."
"The CylancePROTECT agent is very low on CPU usage, so it has virtually no adverse impact on my servers, desktops, or workstations."
"Blackberry Protect offers endpoint protection. It's easy to deploy. It's scalable and stable."
"Very easy to deploy. It can be done one by one or deployed by customizing an MSI file for GPO push."
"Specifically for a Windows domain environment, the product can be customized and pushed via GPO or SCCM without issue."
"The most functional item that we use is the process to turn off the false flags that it causes."
"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."
"The solution is very quick at easily changing the levels of protection for each computer and the server."
"I like the AI and mathematical components that they use."
"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."
"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."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"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"
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"Unfortunately, the web (cloud) management system and log search performance are quite bad."
"Improvements are required in two key areas: notifications and setup simplification."
"I would like to see simple sandboxing for malware analysis."
"I would like to see support for a policy in the appliance that will refuse to create a connection if it does not detect an active virus scanner."
"I would like to see is this same solution being able to link with the services of different corporate networks as if they were a remote access VPN extension and thus not require additional licenses."
"The price of the product could be more friendly."
"For the future, I would like to see maybe a content-filtering emulation feature in Harmony Endpoint."
"The management in Check Point Harmony Endpoint could be improved."
"The solution’s technical support could be improved."
"The initial deployment was quite complicated."
"It should have better support for Windows and Mac."
"They could improve on the false positives, reporting and whitelisting features."
"The user interface is outdated."
"It should provide more details about the events that they have detected."
"The OPTICS component could be made more user-friendly with respect to giving people more information."
"The management console needs a little maturity in how it presents data and allows the administrator to drill down or search across systems."
Check Point Harmony Endpoint is ranked 8th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 99 reviews while CylancePROTECT is ranked 28th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 37 reviews. Check Point Harmony Endpoint is rated 8.8, while CylancePROTECT is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Check Point Harmony Endpoint writes "Excellent anti-ransomware protection, zero-day phishing protection, and web browsing filtering". 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". Check Point Harmony Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas CylancePROTECT is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Check Point Harmony Endpoint vs. CylancePROTECT report.
See our list of best EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) vendors.
We monitor all EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) 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.