We performed a comparison between Digital Guardian and Fortinet FortiEDR based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Some of the features that are highly appreciated are its robust data loss prevention capabilities, flexible deployment options, and the ability to monitor data transfer across multiple vectors."
"It has been scalable."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"In Digital Guardian, they have the cloud correlation servers that give you visibility work like EBR and the correlation server works very well for security analysis."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"It is stable and scalable."
"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."
"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 setup is pretty simple."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"If the client uses Windows 10 or 11 and Microsoft updates the operating system's version, Digital Guardian must update their product to match compatibility."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
"When considering potential areas for improvement, it may be beneficial for Digital Guardian to optimize its processes and reduce the computational demands on the system, particularly with regard to high CPU usage. Although Digital Guardian offers numerous benefits, it can consume a substantial amount of RAM and CPU power."
"The room for improvement with Digital Guardian is that it will be better with the Linux agent because it is the only DLP solution for Linux workstations. It still needs to upgrade the agents to the latest version for the Linux kernel."
"Technical support could be better."
"It would be helpful if there was an on-premise version of the solution for companies that cannot use the cloud, such as government sectors."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"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."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"The solution is not stable."
"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."
"Detections could be improved."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
Digital Guardian is ranked 33rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 11 reviews while Fortinet FortiEDR is ranked 13th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 30 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while Fortinet FortiEDR is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiEDR writes "A proactive solution that works as a proactive upgrade from a firewall". Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and CrowdStrike Falcon, whereas Fortinet FortiEDR is most compared with Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Digital Guardian vs. Fortinet FortiEDR report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.