We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The stability is very good."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"They do a very good job of providing multi-stage visualizations of malicious operations that immediately show all attack details across all devices and users. Since it is MalOp-centric model, you can see if there has been a similar operation across multiple machines. If it is the same thing appearing on multiple machines, you see all the machines and users affected in one screen."
"The dashboard is very good and you can consider it as an interactive UI."
"Immediately we can pick up the computers in the network if any malicious operation that is triggered."
"For me, the technical support is good."
"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."
"When you download the executable file from the internet, it automatically sandboxes to make sure it's not doing anything incorrectly."
"The most valuable feature, in my opinion, is the dimension logging platform and the network traffic filtering."
"The basic functionality is fantastic. It has been performing well. I generated a report on one machine, using that as the deployment machine. When scanning the network, it discovered machines on the network and deployed the same endpoint protection from that one machine I have on my network."
"WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is a reliable solution."
"WatchGuard is very user-friendly. It provides us with all of the security services we need."
"The interface is very good."
"The protection that it provides from ransomware is valuable. The awareness that it has is also valuable. It didn't have a central console earlier, but now it has a central console, which is pretty good."
"The analytics are important because if there is an abnormality then it provides that information to us."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"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."
"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."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"The support needs improvement."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"It initially took some time to deploy."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The product's reporting isn't great."
"Compared to our previous endpoint, we have a lot more false positives and a lot more duplication of alerts. So we're chasing more alerts."
"It should be more stable, and the sensor needs improvement in terms of connectivity."
"The reporting isn't so good. If they worked to improve this aspect of the solution, it would be much stronger."
"The ease of detecting where an issue is should be improved."
"The administrative UI/UX could be significantly improved."
"It can have a couple of false positives, but after you add them to your allow list, it works fine. It could have better Mac support. I am pretty sure it doesn't have much support for Mac. It can be installed on a Mac, but it is not that good."
"The website must provide more information on the product."
"I'd like a few extra features, especially around threat severity assessment."
"This product needs to be fully integrated with the firewall. Currently, it only sends logs to the cloud and asks the firewall to correlate them."
"The solution is a bit confusing and there are unusual complications with setup."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
More WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 38th in EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) with 19 reviews while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is ranked 29th in EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) with 12 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is rated 8.2. 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 WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response writes "Offers deployment simplicity, especially for firewalls and firewall configuration and good documentation available ". 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 WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Intercept X Endpoint, Darktrace and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response report.
See our list of best EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) vendors.
We monitor all EDR (Endpoint Detection and 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.