We performed a comparison between ESET Inspect and Fidelis Elevate 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."It is stable and scalable."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"ESET Enterprise Inspector's most valuable feature is EDR."
"ESET Enterprise Inspector's greatest asset lies in its user-friendly interface, which allows for easy navigation and thorough analysis of incidents."
"I find the multilayered endpoint security the most valuable feature."
"The rules are the best and most useful features."
"Scalability-wise, it is a very good solution."
"Rules are the most valuable feature of ESET Inspect. They are created through XML language, and they track and filter events from endpoints. If the event matches the rule, the rule is triggered. Exceptions are the second most valuable feature because it gives you the power to filter false positives in large numbers. The third most valuable feature is the Learning mode that facilitates making exceptions for known processes with a good reputation."
"It ensures the stability of network behavior across various aspects of our network and offers responsive capabilities to address incidents promptly"
"There are many valuable features. The NDR gives very good network visibility, and the endpoint module has a great feature called "Live Connect" for remote connections. They also have "Tasks" that can be run on endpoints to gather specific information or retrieve logs."
"Reporting is great, it is easy to do a quick search through 45 days of data for something of interest."
"It has a rating system now so you can rate things up or down, depending on your environment. This means alerting can be customized, yet still pick up anomalies."
"The initial setup is very straightforward. The deployment of the server doesn't take so long; about a day or two max."
"The solution's technical support is perfect, so I rate the technical support a ten out of ten"
"Compared to similar solutions, it's quite scalable. You just need to add more storage to scale-up."
"After rack and stack, devices were up and running base configurations within two hours. As with any IPS, tuning is required to stop false positives. This is no different, but the ease of use of the interface allowed my team to start making adjustments within a few hours."
"The support needs improvement."
"Detections could be improved."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"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."
"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."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The solution could improve the consumption of resources. The RAM and CPU usage increases during usage which can cause issues. We have three separate services and it would be beneficial if all were executed from one agent limiting the over usage of system resources."
"It may be difficult for a first-time customer to understand all of the functions that are available to him."
"The product is complex to configure, and there are too many errors that are not errors, making it an area that can be considered for improvement."
"The platform's price could be better."
"It is not a stable product. We were disappointed in the stability of this product in comparison to McAffee."
"Every vendor is working on making the job of SOC analysts easier, with fewer false positives and more precise detections. ESET uses LiveGrid technology that provides feedback on the reputation of files and operations. It's hard to eliminate all of the false positives, but hopefully, we'll see some improvement with the advances in AI."
"There is room for improvement in email security. It's a security issue. If you're aiming for XDR, covering the entire threat landscape is crucial."
"Configuration, in terms of building the collector and communicating with endpoints, is complex."
"We position the solution as an antivirus, but this part of the solution needs improvement. They need to generally enhance the features that they have, rather than adding anything new."
"I encounter difficulty removing certain entries in behavior or alerts; likewise, I am unable to add specific calls."
"Fidelis Endpoint is an expensive product making it one of its shortcomings that needs improvement."
"The interface bug needs to be squashed once and for all. This has been the predominant issue with an otherwise stellar product. It reboots itself unscheduled, about once a month, due to a memory buffer flaw in the interface."
"The reports in the endpoint area of Elevate can be improved."
ESET Inspect is ranked 51st in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 6 reviews while Fidelis Elevate is ranked 41st in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 7 reviews. ESET Inspect is rated 7.6, while Fidelis Elevate is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of ESET Inspect writes "A product with an easy setup phase that helps manage attacks and vulnerabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fidelis Elevate writes "Advanced threat detection capabilities with comprehensive incident response features providing robust cybersecurity for organizations". ESET Inspect is most compared with HP Wolf Security, CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trend Vision One and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas Fidelis Elevate is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, VMware Carbon Black Cloud, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) and Darktrace. See our ESET Inspect vs. Fidelis Elevate report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors and 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.