We performed a comparison between Cynet and Intercept X Endpoint based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Cynet offers strong ransomware protection and an intuitive interface. Cynet needs to expand device support and add customization options. Intercept X Endpoint combines two products into one solution, offering strong performance, server protection, and efficient threat management capabilities. Users suggest improving network monitoring and strengthening integration with other tools. Intercept X Endpoint could benefit from better integration with third-party vendors and improved support for virtual infrastructures.
Service and Support: Cynet's customer service is consistently lauded for its excellence. Their dedicated support team is available around the clock, and they also have a contingency plan for urgent incidents. Some users found Intercept X Endpoint's support team knowledgeable and supportive, while others expressed dissatisfaction with responsiveness.
Ease of Deployment: Cynet’s setup is highly efficient, with the ability to configure thousands of devices quickly. Intercept X Endpoint has a straightforward initial setup, with quick installation and simple configuration and maintenance. Some users said they occasionally encountered issues that required reinstallation.
Pricing: Customers generally think Cynet is affordable and a good value for its features. Intercept X Endpoint is generally seen as fairly priced, but some users think it’s on the higher end of the price scale.
ROI: Cynet yields an excellent ROI by preventing cyberattacks and safeguarding sensitive data. Users say that Intercept X Endpoint offers exceptional defense against ransomware and zero-day threats, leading to a positive return on investment.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Cynet over Intercept X Endpoint. Cynet offers a tailored experience, regular automatic updates, and a user-friendly dashboard equipped with advanced protection capabilities. The solution goes the extra mile with its sophisticated ransomware defense and complimentary 24/7 SOC service. While Intercept X Endpoint also offers solid threat protection, Cynet's customization options and comprehensive cybersecurity approach make it the top choice.
"The most valuable feature is probably the aggregation and correlation of the different telemetry points with Defender for Identity, Defender for Endpoint, and Defender for Cloud Apps. All of these various things are part of that portal. We've wanted that single pane of glass for years."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that Microsoft Defender XDR is easy to integrate with other Microsoft platforms or products."
"The most valuable feature depends on the scenario. For compliance, I like Microsoft Purview Information Protection and Data Loss Prevention. Sentinel is the most helpful feature for security. 365 Defender helps us prioritize threats across an enterprise. It's a crucial feature for the managed services team."
"The ability to hunt that IM data set or the identity data set at the same time is valuable. As incident response professionals, we are very used to EDRs and having device process registry telemetry, but a lot of times, we do not have that identity data right there with us, so we have to go search for it in some other silo. Being able to cross-correlate via both datasets at the same time is something that we can only do in Def"
"The EDR features are valuable. By getting the EDR features, we have more control over the device. We have information about events in real-time and more protection against zero-day threats and zero-day vulnerabilities. We can monitor every event or action that a device is going through. We can get an idea if it is something malicious or if we have to take any actions."
"The most valuable features are spam filtering, attachment filtering, and antivirus protection."
"We are able to consolidate licences and make use of many Microsoft products using this solution. If we have any Microsoft customers, we encourage them to use this solution for enterprise defence."
"The advantage of Microsoft Defender XDR has over other XDRs in the market is that it's easy to use. You can quickly differentiate between alerts, incidents, devices, software, etc. It's easier to investigate an incident, and you have so many options. You can automate investigations and use playbooks. There's also the live response session, which is something you can't find in any other XDR."
"I like the Cynet Correlator™ feature."
"We are very satisfied with the level of performance we get."
"Cynet is light and transparent when downloaded. The product's data aggregation is also valuable since you can see everything you need on a page."
"The level of automation is very good because the majority of the time, it blocks the attacks without requiring anything from our side. The technicians don't have to do anything. They are just alerted about what happened. So, the user intelligence works quite well."
"Advanced detection and protection against ransomware paired with SOC monitoring are the most valuable features. They have 24/7 SOC monitoring and file activity. It is a very robust tool."
"A good feature is how the solution packages varied information into a single dashboard that's readable and meets our needs."
"It can be deployed in autonomous mode, and then it automatically blocks malware threats."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that the configuration and the usage of the product are not so complicated. For people responsible for using this infrastructure for the first line of workstation monitoring, it's quite easy to use."
"This solution can be used with any device, mobiles, desktops, or any appliances."
"This is really good because it's applicable to zero-day threats."
"A valuable feature offered by Sophos is called Naked Security, and it entails the control managed by the firewall on the site regarding the desktop client interfacing with our cloud client."
"We find all features valuable. It has zero-day protection, which is the most valuable feature of Intercept X. We have Intercept X with EDR. EDR is a very important feature. It gives an idea about the source of a particular attack. An administrator gets to know everything, which helps in understanding the things that need to be done or protected in the organization. Based on this information, an administrator can decide what needs to open or allowed in the network. Without EDR, Intercept X is like an antivirus, and the administrator won't get to know the things going on at the organizational level. I recommend purchasing an EDR solution for every organization."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature is the supervisory side of it where we can watch the throughputs, and even the loading of the device, to see how much traffic is happening."
"The client isolation feature is a very effective feature."
"Correctly updated records are the most significant area for improvement. There have been times when we were notified of a required fix; we would carry out the fix and confirm it but still get the same notification a week later. This seems to be a delay in records being updated and leads to false reporting, which is something that needs to be fixed."
"Generally, antivirus products provide a central control to manage every device in terms of who is installing it or who is trying to disable it, but Microsoft doesn't have such a control center for the antivirus product it provides."
"It would be helpful if the solution could scan faster when it comes to scanning attachments to emails."
"It would be beneficial to have a more seamless experience with everything consolidated in one place, particularly when dealing with aspects related to the Exchange console."
"The advanced threat-hunting capabilities are phenomenal, and the security copilot enhances that, but some data elements could be better or have more context inside of the advanced tables themselves. The schemas feel a little limited to what they're building into the product. It's probably just a maturity thing. I imagine we'll see the features I want in the next year."
"From an integration standpoint, it is always improving overall. With Security Copilot coming out, as partners, we are waiting for the GDAP support so that we can actually see Security Copilot on behalf of customers if they subscribe to it."
"The solution could improve by having better machine learning and AI. Additionally, the interface, documentation, and integration could be better."
"Advanced attacks could use an improvement."
"I would like to see more emphasis on building the data lake and storing all endpoint data in the enterprise data lake so that data mining can be performed"
"Could have better integration with other security applications."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the usability of this product for new threats. Meaning, not everything which is new is properly seen by the product and not all the required actions are taken."
"Increased application for SOAR abilities across interconnected devices would be a welcome improvement."
"Its dashboard is not so good. On the dashboard, they don't show the count for client endpoints, which is a failure of this product. This count should be shown on the dashboard. I have 1,000 clients, but I can't see it anywhere on the dashboard."
"Linux servers are not supported."
"There is room for improvement in terms of support. The support should be faster to respond."
"It is an endpoint agent, but they don't have a probe for checking the network traffic. They could improve from this point of view."
"When there is an event generated by either the firewall or Intercept X, and the originating IP address is the same, these should be merged into a single event rather than two."
"When I use a proxy, I can bypass Sophos, which is an area that needs improvement."
"In my opinion, there have been significant developments in the product. In my opinion, I don’t have any suggestions as of now, however I can suggest a cost deduction which will be beneficial for all the parties. It will also relieve our budget and benefit our team."
"The EDR could be improved, and perhaps the User Interface."
"The price of this solution can be improved."
"The initial setup was not very user-friendly."
"They need to focus on their SLA or technical support. They also need to focus on their UI. They should also improve their content filtering tool and update it so that correct categories are there. Sometimes, when I want to block an online gaming website, it is not shown under the correct category. It is shown under another category. They need to review their content filtering tool on a bi-weekly or monthly basis and update the sites and categories. This will be really helpful for them."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
Cynet is ranked 15th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 35 reviews while Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 99 reviews. Cynet is rated 8.8, while Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Wazuh, whereas Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Fortinet FortiClient. See our Cynet vs. Intercept X Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors, best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors, and best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.
