We performed a comparison between Digital Guardian and WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response 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."The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"The stability is very good."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"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."
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"The feature we call desktop recording is the most valuable aspect of the solution. Not only can we collect data from the user's usage, but we also capture his screenshots when he is trying to steal the data."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"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."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"The most valuable feature is the correlation of logs from different devices."
"The interface is very good."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"I like WatchGuard's network segmentation features. It's easy to configure user policies."
"WatchGuard is very user-friendly. It provides us with all of the security services we need."
"The analytics are important because if there is an abnormality then it provides that information to us."
"WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is a reliable solution."
"The protection that it provides from ransomware is valuable. The awareness that it has is also valuable. It didn't have a central console earlier, but now it has a central console, which is pretty good."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"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."
"Digital Guardian is an excellent solution but our experience with the partner has been the most horrible experience we have ever had with any partner."
"There are a lot of issues with the current version of the Endpoint agent. It's not stable, it's resource-consuming, and there are some performance issues. If they could improve the stability of the agent it would be great."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It can have a couple of false positives, but after you add them to your allow list, it works fine. It could have better Mac support. I am pretty sure it doesn't have much support for Mac. It can be installed on a Mac, but it is not that good."
"This product needs to be fully integrated with the firewall. Currently, it only sends logs to the cloud and asks the firewall to correlate them."
"The ease of detecting where an issue is should be improved."
"The interface is not the best."
"I'd like a few extra features, especially around threat severity assessment."
"WatchGuard should offer more visibility into user activity. For example, we should have more details when WatchGuard denies a user access to a port."
"The administrative UI/UX could be significantly improved."
"The website must provide more information on the product."
More WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Digital Guardian is ranked 33rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 11 reviews while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is ranked 27th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 12 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is rated 8.2. 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 WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response writes "Offers deployment simplicity, especially for firewalls and firewall configuration and good documentation available ". 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 WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Darktrace, Bitdefender GravityZone EDR and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Digital Guardian vs. WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response 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.