Compare Cylance vs. Palo Alto Networks Traps

Cylance is ranked 9th in Endpoint Protection for Business with 6 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Traps which is ranked 8th in Endpoint Protection for Business with 10 reviews. Cylance is rated 8.4, while Palo Alto Networks Traps is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cylance writes "Endpoints are protected in real-time without the need of a centralized server". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Traps writes "Its multi-layer approach helps my organization with anti-malware, exploit protection, and restrictions". Cylance is most compared with CrowdStrike, Carbon Black CB Defense and SentinelOne, whereas Palo Alto Networks Traps is most compared with Microsoft Windows Defender, Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) and Carbon Black CB Defense. See our Cylance vs. Palo Alto Networks Traps report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Cylance Logo
44,562 views|23,280 comparisons
Palo Alto Networks Traps Logo
20,696 views|13,325 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Cylance vs. Palo Alto Networks Traps and other solutions. Updated: July 2019.
354,017 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
The solution is extremely scalable. It's got the hybrid functionality, it's got the system functionality and cloud functionality as well.The solution is stable.The solution is pretty easy to scale.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.​Centralized dashboard online which can be used for managing a huge product.Even if an endpoint loses connection to the Internet, I know that endpoint is protected against 99.99% of the threats in the wild today.Specifically for a Windows domain environment, the product can be customized and pushed via GPO or SCCM without issue.​Endpoints are protected in real-time without the need of a centralized server.

Read more »

It's very stable. I've never experienced downtime for the ASM console or ASM core.We have a complete overview of all our PCs and it's very easy to handle and to use the interface. It has a lot of benefits for us.The one feature of Palo Alto Networks Traps that our organization finds most valuable is the App ID service.It blocks malicious files. It prevents attacks. It doesn't require many updates, it's a very light application.The most valuable features are the fact that it was running in the background and it would intercept any weird stuff, and the fact that it would send things directly to the cloud for sandboxing. It's quite practical.After deploying Traps, we saw the performance of the network improve by 65 to 70 percent.Traps is quite a stable product. Once it was properly deployed and configured, you have nothing to be worried about.If the user leaves our premises or network, Palo Alto Traps will still be on that endpoint and will still apply our policies.

Read more »

Cons
I would say one thing that they might need to bring in is protection for mobile devices.The solution needs better dashboards that are easier to use.The security scripting needs improvement. It needs deeper security for scripting.I would like to see a better UI in terms of sifting through more specific data and providing analytics. A little bit more would be nice.​Work on the math model. We are catching a lot of false positives, which gets to be a pain at the start of a deployment.The management console needs a little maturity in how it presents data and allows the administrator to drill down or search across systems.

Read more »

In the next release, I would like to see more UI improvements. Their UI is a bit basic. When we are speaking about Palo Alto Networks they are the big company, so they can improve the UI a little bit. The UI, the reports, the log system can all be improved.Currently, if you use Palo Alto endpoint protection as the only solution it's very complicated to remove pre-existing threats.It automatically detects security issues. It should be able to protect our network devices while operating autonomously.Managing the product should be easier.There are some false positives. What our guys would have liked is that it would have been easier to manipulate as soon as they found a false positive that they knew was a false positive. How to do so was not obvious. Some people complained about it. The interface, the ESM, is not user-friendly.There are some default policies which sometimes affect our applications and cause them to run around. In the hotel industry, we use a different type of data versus Oracle and SQL. By default, there are some policies which stop us from running properly. Because of this, the support level is also not that strong. We have to wait to get a results.Traps doesn't work with McAfee. You need to remove McAfee to install Traps. This is very common, and its nothing that should be an issue. Some antivirus engines recognize Traps as an threat component, so maybe they need to shake hands somewhere.Previously, the endpoint would leave the environment, not being on our VPN, essentially unable to interact with the server to upload files. It was unable to retrieve new file verdicts. It was using a thing called "local analysis" to determine if something was a malicious file or not. There was no dynamic analysis.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
We would just add more if there are new users, but right now you just need one license for per user.Our licensing cost for the solution is around $4,000 for six months. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.​Shop around for sure and be assured the price you pay will be close to other solutions available, but even at a slight mark-up from the other solutions, you are getting real endpoint protection versus nothing more than a cheap security blanket that might keep you warm at night.Do not get hung up on price. You pay for what you get and expensive will hurt one time, where cheap will hurt forever, especially if you fall victim to a ransom attack, etc.​The initial end-point cost may seem a little high (~$55/device/year) but when you look at the total peace of mind that the solution provides, with no reboots for updates, and negligible performance impact, it is well worth it.

Read more »

The price was fine.When we first bought it, it was a bit expensive, but it was worth it. The licensing was straightforward.I did PoCs on products called Cylance and CrowdStrike. Although, I consider these products and they were also good, when it come to cost and budgetary factors, Traps has been proven to be better than the other two products. It is quite cost-effective and delivers all the entire solution which we require.It is cost-effective compared to similar solutions. It fits for the small businesses through to the big businesses.The return on investment is from the user side because we have seen the performance of it increase the delivery time of the product if we are using too many web-based and on-premise applications. In indirect ways, we saw the return of investment in terms of performance and user satisfaction increase.It is "expensive" and flexible.Traps pays for itself within the first 16 months of a three-year subscription. This is attributed to OPEX savings, as security teams spent less time trying to identify and isolate malware for analysis as a result of a reduction in malware incidents, false positives, and breach avoidance.We didn't have to pay any additional fee for the cloud instance. It just came with the renewal, which was nice.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection for Business solutions are best for your needs.
354,017 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
44,562
Comparisons
23,280
Reviews
3
Average Words per Review
542
Avg. Rating
9.0
Views
20,696
Comparisons
13,325
Reviews
8
Average Words per Review
929
Avg. Rating
8.5
Top Comparisons
Compared 21% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Also Known As
Cyvera
Learn
Cylance
Palo Alto Networks
Overview

Cylance® is revolutionizing cybersecurity with products and services that proactively prevent, rather than reactively detect the execution of advanced persistent threats and malware. Our technology is deployed on over four million endpoints and protects hundreds of enterprise clients worldwide including Fortune 100 organizations and government institutions.

Traps replaces legacy antivirus and secures endpoints with a multi-method prevention approach that blocks malware and exploits, both known and unknown, before they compromise endpoints such as laptops, desktops and servers.

Offer
Learn more about Cylance
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks Traps
Sample Customers
Panasonic, Noble Energy, Apria Healthcare Group Inc., Charles River Laboratories, Rovi Corporation, Toyota, KiewitCBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm19%
Non Tech Company12%
Energy/Utilities Company12%
Construction Company7%
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company22%
Mining And Metals Company22%
Government11%
Financial Services Firm11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm17%
Legal Firm13%
Media Company13%
Comms Service Provider10%
Find out what your peers are saying about Cylance vs. Palo Alto Networks Traps and other solutions. Updated: July 2019.
354,017 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all 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.
Sign Up with Email