We performed a comparison between CylancePROTECT and OpenText EnCase eDiscovery 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."Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"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 most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"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."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"The most functional item that we use is the process to turn off the false flags that it causes."
"Has good RAM capacity for the power I need"
"It provides good insight into the programs, applications, or websites that may need attention."
"Centralized dashboard online which can be used for managing a huge product."
"The solution is extremely scalable. It's got the hybrid functionality, it's got the system functionality and cloud functionality as well."
"It actively monitors the behavior and activity of processes and will, without hesitation, terminate at root anything it determines to be suspect."
"The solution’s AI is its most valuable feature."
"It handles situations that the other threat management tools wouldn't find. It has worked well covering the weaker sides of the other products that we're integrating."
"I like the processing feature on the product because it does everything at once, i.e, indexing, recovery, keyword searches, etc."
"It speeds up the process, so I can meet my deadlines."
"The technical support is excellent."
"The most important feature we've found is the Enscripts. That is one powerful feature that I, personally, love to use."
"It indexes much faster, and is more reflexive because of the Enscripts."
"The solution is very stable."
"Data Recovery: Its ability to repair damaged partitions and uncover hidden partitions from within the tool, and allow further analysis."
"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."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"Detections could be improved."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"The OPTICS component could be made more user-friendly with respect to giving people more information."
"It's a good solution but some features just need to be updated."
"It should have better support for Windows and Mac."
"The product does not do a lot of reporting on what it is taking care of. Enhanced reporting would be a welcome improvement."
"I would say one thing that they might need to bring in is protection for mobile devices."
"If they can add more features on top of their Persona feature that would be ideal."
"The product needs to continue to offer better alerts. In particular, around false positives. It needs to reduce them from happening."
"CylancePROTECT could be improved in its technical support and communication."
"The reporting is a bit unreliable. It needs to be better."
"In the past, incident response time for tech support was slow."
"I would like to see a capability to ingest and absorb more data. That would be really good. It currently is lacking this function."
"Ease of use and learning curve need improvement."
"We have come across problems with the end-case. We could not find an email discovery type of module and there was not flexibility with the email."
"Sometimes the application can take more time to complete the image processing or fail at the end of the process."
"There were minor UI bugs."
CylancePROTECT is ranked 28th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 37 reviews while OpenText EnCase eDiscovery is ranked 4th in eDiscovery with 8 reviews. CylancePROTECT is rated 8.0, while OpenText EnCase eDiscovery is rated 7.8. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText EnCase eDiscovery writes "A stable and scalable hybrid solution with easy setup". CylancePROTECT is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, whereas OpenText EnCase eDiscovery is most compared with Nuix eDiscovery, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) and kCura Relativity. See our CylancePROTECT vs. OpenText EnCase eDiscovery report.
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.