We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and Digital Guardian based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"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"
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"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."
"I haven't had any issues with the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The solution is efficient."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"Cybereason absolutely enables us to mitigate and isolate on the fly. Our managed detection response telemetry has dropped dramatically since we began using it. It's very top-of-mind. We were running some tabletop exercises and none of the detections were getting triggered by the managed security services provider. So we needed to find a solution that would trigger high-fidelity alerts. That was Cybereason and it dramatically changed our landscape from the detection and response perspective."
"Cybereason's threat hunting and investigation are the most valuable features. Threat hunting is a user-friendly feature that keeps you safe. Investigation offers an added value that I haven't seen with other EDR services. It allows you to find specific policy problems within your environment."
"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."
"For me, the technical support is good."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"The feature we call desktop recording is the most valuable aspect of the solution. Not only can we collect data from the user's usage, but we also capture his screenshots when he is trying to steal the data."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"It has been scalable."
"Some of the features that are highly appreciated are its robust data loss prevention capabilities, flexible deployment options, and the ability to monitor data transfer across multiple vectors."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"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."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"It initially took some time to deploy."
"Its Microsoft PowerShell protections still need some compatibility improvements. We have run across just a few. It is compatible with 90% of what we have in our network, but there is that 10% that we are still struggling with as far as compatibility with the type of PowerShell scripts needed to run our day-to-day business."
"The product's reporting isn't great."
"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."
"It should be more stable, and the sensor needs improvement in terms of connectivity."
"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."
"Reporting could be a bit more granular so that we had the ability to check regions and countries. I just noticed that, for instance, if I look at our servers, it's either "contained" or it's "not contained". I don't have the option, for instance, to look at countries. It only allows me to look at users as one big group."
"There can be problems with the EDI."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"If the client uses Windows 10 or 11 and Microsoft updates the operating system's version, Digital Guardian must update their product to match compatibility."
"It would be helpful if there was an on-premise version of the solution for companies that cannot use the cloud, such as government sectors."
"The room for improvement with Digital Guardian is that it will be better with the Linux agent because it is the only DLP solution for Linux workstations. It still needs to upgrade the agents to the latest version for the Linux kernel."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"Technical support could be better."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 37th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 19 reviews while Digital Guardian is ranked 33rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 11 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while Digital Guardian is rated 7.4. 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 Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Darktrace and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and CrowdStrike Falcon. See our Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. Digital Guardian report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.
