We performed a comparison between Elastic Security 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 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."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"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 price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"It is an extremely stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"It can handle millions of loads at a time, and you can always use the filters to find exactly what you are looking for and detect errors in every log message you are searching for, basically."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability. We are in Indonesia, more engineers understand Elastic Security here. So it is easier to scale and also develop. In features, the discovery to query all the logs is very important to us. It is very easy, especially with the query function and the feature to generate alerts and create tools. Sometimes we use the alert security dashboard to monitor our clients."
"Enables monitoring of application performance and the ability to predict behaviors."
"I like that it's a SIEM platform. I like that I can sell Elastic Security quickly. Elastic Security has a large community that can support users."
"I use the stack every morning to check the errors and it's just so clear. I don't see any disadvantage to using Logstash."
"We've found the initial setup to be quite straightforward."
"ELK documentation is very good, so never needed to contact technical support."
"WatchGuard is very user-friendly. It provides us with all of the security services we need."
"The tool provides automated responses."
"When you download the executable file from the internet, it automatically sandboxes to make sure it's not doing anything incorrectly."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the correlation of logs from different devices."
"The most valuable feature, in my opinion, is the dimension logging platform and the network traffic filtering."
"The interface is very good."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"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."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"They don't provide user authentication and authorisation features (Shield) as a part of their open-source version."
"With Elastic Security, the challenge arises from the fact that there is a learning curve in relation to queries and understanding the query language provided to extract usable data."
"Elastic has one problem. In the past, Elastic Security was free. Now, they currently only offer the basic license or a certain period of time."
"There are connectors to gather logs for Windows PCs and Linux PCs, but if we have to get the logs from Syslog then we have to do it manually, and this should be automated."
"There should be a simulation environment to check whether my Elastic implementation is functioning perfectly fine. Other solutions have their own Android and iOS applications that I can install on my mobile so that I am continuously connected to the SIEM."
"The process of designing dashboards is a little cumbersome in Kibana. Unless you are an expert, you will not be able to use it. The process should be pretty straightforward. The authentication feature is what we are looking for. We would love to have a central authentication system in the open-source edition without the need for a license or an enterprise license. If they can give at least a simple authentication system within a company. In a large organization, authentication is very essential for security because logs can contain a lot of confidential data. Therefore, an authentication feature for who accesses it should be there."
"The Integration module could be improved. It is a pain to build integration with any product. We have to do parking and so on. It's not like other commercial solutions that use profile integration. I would also see more detection features on the SIEM side."
"The biggest challenge has been related to the implementation."
"The ease of detecting where an issue is should be improved."
"When it comes to live-monitoring, the user-interface could be improved to make things easier."
"I'd like a few extra features, especially around threat severity assessment."
"The administrative UI/UX could be significantly improved."
"The solution is a bit confusing and there are unusual complications with setup."
"The interface is not the best."
"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 website must provide more information on the product."
More WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Elastic Security is ranked 16th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 58 reviews while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is ranked 27th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 12 reviews. Elastic Security is rated 7.6, while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Elastic Security writes "A stable and scalable tool that provides visibility along with the consolidation of logs to its users". 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 ". Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and IBM Security QRadar, 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 Elastic Security 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.
