We compared CylancePROTECT and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, CylancePROTECT is praised for its exceptional threat detection capabilities, customer service, positive ROI, and ease of use, while users highlight the need for improvements in detection capabilities and integration. On the other hand, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint stands out for its comprehensive threat protection, efficient system management, and incident response capabilities, with users also satisfied with customer service and ROI. Pricing, setup, and licensing are perceived positively for both products, with room for improvement in certain areas mentioned by users.
Features: CylancePROTECT stands out for its exceptional threat detection, zero-day attack prevention, easy implementation, low system impact, and comprehensive analytics. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint excels in comprehensive threat protection, real-time monitoring, efficient system management, user-friendly interface, seamless integration, and incident response capabilities.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for CylancePROTECT is described as minimal, straightforward, and hassle-free, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint's setup process is deemed straightforward and doesn't require much effort., The ROI from CylancePROTECT was highly positive, delivering improved security measures, increased efficiency, and reduced costs. Users praised its user-friendly interface and fast deployment. On the other hand, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint was seen as positive with users expressing satisfaction with its performance, effectiveness in protecting against threats, ease of use, and real-time insights.
Room for Improvement: CylancePROTECT has room for improvement in detection capabilities, integration with other security tools, reporting and analytics functionalities, and user interface. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint also has areas for enhancement according to user feedback.
Deployment and customer support: Based on user feedback, the duration required to establish a new tech solution varies for both CylancePROTECT and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. Some users for CylancePROTECT mentioned different timeframes for deployment and setup, while for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, users also had different timeframes but emphasized the importance of context., The customer service for CylancePROTECT is praised for exceptional assistance, personalized guidance, and resolving issues promptly. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint provides helpful, efficient, and prompt support with effective solutions.
The summary above is based on 98 interviews we conducted recently with CylancePROTECT and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"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."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"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."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"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."
"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."
"What I like best about CylancePROTECT is its accuracy, as it doesn't give many false positives."
"The solution is stable."
"Centralized dashboard online which can be used for managing a huge product."
"The CylancePROTECT agent is very low on CPU usage, so it has virtually no adverse impact on my servers, desktops, or workstations."
"Has good RAM capacity for the power I need"
"What I found most valuable in Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is that it's out-of-the-box, which brings more value to the customer. The technical support for the product is also one of the best parts, because it's good, in terms of the product knowledge of the technical engineers."
"It's stable."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is extremely stable."
"A few years ago, when I was using a different product, I was affected by a virus that destroyed everything. Since using Microsoft Defender, I have not had this kind of problem."
"Defender's analytics are much better than CrowdStrike's."
"It is stable and easy to use. Everything is okay, and there are no performance issues."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is beneficial because we are using Microsoft Windows and all the core solutions are made by Microsoft, such as the authentic platform, operating system, and antivirus protection. It is a heterogeneous environment. We had to use third-party solutions before and update everything separately. For example, the policy for antivirus. With Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, when Microsoft Windows receives updates it will update with it. This is one main advantage of this solution."
"It is a straightforward setup."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"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"
"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."
"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."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"The product does not do a lot of reporting on what it is taking care of. Enhanced reporting would be a welcome improvement."
"The process of whitelisting a script that you want to be able to run can be a little bit difficult, or awkward."
"It needs real analysis of quarantined files. The EDR product isn't showing much right now."
"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."
"It was not effective. There were a lot of false positives, even when we use Adobe, and everybody uses Adobe, which is not a threat."
"It is hard to manage."
"It's a good solution but some features just need to be updated."
"More integration with different platforms is an area for improvement for this product, and should be included in its next release."
"The detection of viruses could be a little bit better."
"I would like Microsoft to have some kind of direct integration for USB controls. They have GPO and other controls to control the access of the USB drives on devices, but if there is something that can be directly implemented into the portal, it would be good. There should be a way to control via a cloud portal or something like that in a dynamic way. USB control for data exfiltration would be a good feature to implement. Currently, there are ways to do it, but it involves too many different things. You have to implement it via GPOs and other stuff, and then you move or copy those big files via Defender ATP. If there is a simple way of implementing those features, it would be great."
"The price, in general, could always be a little bit cheaper."
"Right now, the solution provides some recommendations on the dashboard but we don't have any priorities. It's a mix of all the vulnerabilities and all the security recommendations. I would like to see some priority or categorization of high, medium, and low so that we can fix the high ones first."
"Some of the integrations that Defender should include involve the use of the web app."
"The dashboard customization could be improved."
"The solution could be more friendly for end-users, with different type of scans or scheduled scans for it."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
CylancePROTECT is ranked 27th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 39 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 182 reviews. CylancePROTECT is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0. 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 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". CylancePROTECT is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Trend Micro Deep Security and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, whereas Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Fortinet FortiClient. See our CylancePROTECT vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.