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 product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"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."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The stability is very good."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"A user can continue to add endpoints and the solution will continue to perform well."
"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."
"The solution is extremely scalable. It's got the hybrid functionality, it's got the system functionality and cloud functionality as well."
"The most valuable features of CylancePROTECT are its powerful machine-learning capabilities and predictive intelligence."
"Two or three years ago when the WannaCry virus struck, the people that were on Cylance were the ones that weren't affected."
"Centralized dashboard online which can be used for managing a huge product."
"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."
"Blackberry Protect offers endpoint protection. It's easy to deploy. It's scalable and stable."
"The solution can scale as needed."
"In terms of the installation, ease of use, and user interface, Defender has been great so far."
"Coming from an organization where the EDR wasn't strong, it has always been a case of basically searching through the information you already have and looking for something. It was basically trying to find the needle in a haystack. What the Defender platform does is that it reduces the size of the haystack, and it'll say that the needle is over here. Minutes matter, and it certainly zeros you in on the events that are concerning. It also simplifies the effort of trying to get some kind of correlation of behaviors or actions you see in the environment and confirming if something is benign or a threat."
"We have very good visibility on our endpoints. The level of information it throws back is helpful."
"I like the process visibility. This ability to visualize how something was executed is valuable, and the fact that Defender ATP is also linked to the threat intelligence that they have is also valuable. So, even if you have something that doesn't have a conventional signature, the fact that you get this strange execution means that you can detect things that are normally not visible."
"Defender should be fine for home use. It has all the basic functionality you need. I can't speak to how well it works as an enterprise solution because I'm not in the space."
"I like that it's easy to deploy because it already comes with Windows 10. Overall, it has all the features that we need. Easy to deploy, comes with updates, and comes with Windows updates. You don't have to really manage or update the signature."
"The features I have found most valuable are the ransomware and malware protection. The solution detects malware live and whenever it detects suspicious activity, it quarantines it."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"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."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"The support needs improvement."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"Additionally, their channel management has been lacking, with a notable disregard for small and medium-sized businesses, focusing primarily on large enterprises and very large MSPs."
"I would like to see them fix the alerting system so that the endpoint reporting is a bit more streamlined."
"If they can add more features on top of their Persona feature that would be ideal."
"CylancePROTECT could be improved in its technical support and communication."
"The security scripting needs improvement. It needs deeper security for scripting."
"The price for this EPP platform is expensive and could be improved."
"The product must make the interface a little more user-friendly."
"Reporting is an area with shortcomings in CylancePROTECT that needs to be improved."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint could provide us with a more holistic approach, such as collaboration. They can provide us with an environment from where we can manage all the endpoints from one central location, such as overall management."
"It can be more secure."
"Some of the integrations that Defender should include involve the use of the web app."
"There's a lot of manual effort involved to configure what we need."
"The solution could be more friendly for end-users, with different type of scans or scheduled scans for it."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint's licensing is confusing. It has conflicting information on the website. We also faced integration issues with other systems. It makes laptops slower than traditional antivirus systems."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint should include better automation that will make it faster to detect the latest threats happening across the world."
"In terms of improvements for their technical support, a focus on enhancing response times could be beneficial."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
CylancePROTECT is ranked 23rd 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.