Compare Fidelis Elevate vs. Vectra AI
Fidelis Elevate is ranked 7th in Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) with 2 reviews while Vectra AI is ranked 3rd in Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) with 10 reviews. Fidelis Elevate is rated 8.0, while Vectra AI is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Fidelis Elevate writes "IPS security, originally from the GOVT space, now commerical". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Vectra AI writes "Gives us that extra chance to stop a disaster before it happens". Fidelis Elevate is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Attivo Networks, Carbon Black Cb Response, FireEye Endpoint Security and Cisco Stealthwatch, whereas Vectra AI is most compared with Darktrace, Cisco Stealthwatch, Awake Security Platform, ExtraHop Reveal(x) and Rapid7 InsightIDR. See our Fidelis Elevate vs. Vectra AI report.
Most Helpful Review | |||||
|
| ||||
 Find out what your peers are saying about Fidelis Elevate vs. Vectra AI and other solutions. Updated: July 2020. 430,585 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |||||
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros | |
The initial setup is very straightforward. The deployment of the server doesn't take so long; about a day or two max. It has also improved our hunt ability with quick search tools, to zone in on malware or other anomalies. It is able to link items to incidents from other consoles, and works natively with the SIEM. 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. Reporting is great, it is easy to do a quick search through 45 days of data for something of interest. 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. | It has reduced the time it takes to respond to attacks. That comes back to the proactive point. It makes us able to lower down in the kill chain, we can react now, rather than reacting to incidents that happened, we can see an instant, in some cases, as it's being implemented, or as it's being launched. One of the most valuable features is all the correlation that it does using AI and machine learning. An example would be alerting on a host and then alerting on other things, like abnormal behavior, that it has noticed coming from the same host. It's valuable because we're a very lean team. The solution provide visibility into behaviors across the full lifecycle of an attack in our network, beyond just the Internet gateway. It makes our security operations much more effective because we are now looking not just at traffic on the border, but we're looking at east-west internal traffic. Now, not only will we see if an exploit kit is being downloaded, but we would be able to see then if that exploit kit was then laterally distributed into our environment. Vectra produces actionable data using automation. That has helped us. It's less manpower now to look at incidents, which has definitely increased efficiency. Right now, in a lot of cases, our mean time to detection is within zero days. This tells me by the time something happened, and we were able to detect it, it was within the same day. The dashboard gives me a scoring system that allows me to prioritize things that I should look at. I may not necessarily care so much about one event, whereas if I have a single botnet detection or a brute force attack, I really want to get on top of those. It gives you access, with Recall, to instant visibility into your network through something like a SIEM solution. For us, being able to correlate all of this network data without having to manage it, has provided immediate value. It gives us the ability to really work on the stuff where I and my team have expertise, instead of having to manage a SIEM solution... The solution's ability to reduce alerts, by rolling up numerous alerts to create a single incident or campaign, helps in that it collapses all the events to a particular host, or a particular detection to a set of hosts. So it doesn't generate too many alerts. By and large, whatever alerts it generates are actionable, and actionable within the day. One of the most valuable features of the platform is its ability to provide you with aggregated risk scores based on impact and certainty of threats being detected. This is both applied to individual and host detections. This is important because it enables us to use this platform to prioritize the most likely imminent threats. So, it reduces alert fatigue follow ups for security operation center analysts. It also provides us with an ability to prioritize limited resources. |
Cons | |
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. 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 false positives and the tuning side of it is something that could use improvement. But that could be from our side. It does a little bit of packet capture on alert so you can look at the packet capture activity going on, but it doesn't collect a whole lot of data. Sometimes it's only one or two frames, sometimes it does collect more. That's why they have the addition of their Recall platform, because that really does help expand the capability. Some of their integrations with other sources of data, like external threat feeds, took a bit more work than I had hoped to get integrated. I would like to see a bit more strategic metrics instead of technical data. Information that I could show to my executive management team or board would be valuable. I'd like to be able to get granular reports and to be able to output them into formats that are customizable and more useful. The reporting GUI is lacking. Some of the customization could be improved. Everything is provided for you as an easy solution to use, but working with it and doing specific development could be worked on a bit more in the scope of an incident response team. One thing which I have found where there could be improvement is with regard to the architecture, a little bit: how the brains and sensors function. It needs more flexibility with regard to the brain. If there were some flexibility in that regard, that would be helpful, because changing the mode of the brain is complex. In some cases, the change is permanent. You cannot revert it. You are always limited with visibility on the host due to the fact that it is a network based tool. It gives you visibility on certain elements of the attack path, but it doesn't necessarily give you visibility on everything. Specifically, the initial intrusion side of things that doesn't necessarily see the initial compromise. It doesn't see stuff that goes on the host, such as where scripts are run. Even though you are seeing traffic, it doesn't necessarily see the malicious payload. Therefore, it's very difficult for it to identify these type of host-driven complex attacks. |
Pricing and Cost Advice | |
You license by the number of days of logs you need to maintain visibility for. Forty-five days is a good solid number for a company with around a 10k user base. | We have a desire to increase our use. However, it all comes down to budget. It's a very expensive tool that is very difficult to prove business support for. We would like to have two separate networks. We have our corporate network and PCI network, which is segregated due to payment processing. We don't have it for deployed in the PCI network. It would be good to have it fully deployed there to provide us with additional monitoring and control, but the cost associated with their licensing model makes it prohibitively expensive to deploy. At the time of purchase, we found the pricing acceptable. We had an urgency to get something in place because we had a minor breach that occurred at the tail end of 2016 to the beginning of 2017. This indicated we had a lack of ability to detect things on the network. Hence, why we moved quickly to get into the tool in place. We found things like Bitcoin mining and botnets which we closed quickly. In that regard, it was worth the money. The license is based on the concurrent IP addresses that it's investigating. We have 9,800 to 10,000 IP addresses. There are additional features that can be purchased in addition to the standard licensing fee, such as Cognito Recall and Stream. We are running at about 90,000 pounds per year. The solution is a licensed cost. The hardware that they gave us was pretty much next to nothing. It is the license that we're paying for. |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) solutions are best for your needs. 430,585 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |
Ranking  | |
Views 1,853 Comparisons 1,089 Reviews 2 Average Words per Review 444 Avg. Rating 8.0 | Views 7,569 Comparisons 4,908 Reviews 10 Average Words per Review 2,217 Avg. Rating 8.8 |
Popular Comparisons | |
 Compared 14% of the time.  Compared 13% of the time.  Compared 10% of the time.  Compared 9% of the time.  Compared 7% of the time. |  Compared 35% of the time. Compared 12% of the time.  Compared 9% of the time.  Compared 7% of the time.  Compared 2% of the time. |
Also Known As | |
| Fidelis Elevate Platform, Fidelis Enterprise, Fidelis Cloud | Vectra Networks, Vectra AI NDR |
Learn | |
| Fidelis Cybersecurity | Vectra AI |
Overview | |
Fidelis Elevate integrates network visibility, data loss prevention, deception, and endpoint detection and response into one unified solution. Now your security team can focus on the most urgent threats and protect sensitive data rather than spending time validating and triaging thousands of alerts. |
Vectra® is the leader in network detection and response – from cloud and data center workloads to user and IoT devices. Its Cognito® platform accelerates threat detection and investigation using artificial intelligence to collect, store and enrich network metadata with the right context to detect, hunt and investigate known and unknown threats in real time. Vectra offers three applications on the Cognito platform to address high-priority use cases. Cognito Stream™ sends security-enriched metadata to data lakes and SIEMs. Cognito Recall™ is a cloud-based application to store and investigate threats in enriched metadata. And Cognito Detect™ uses AI to reveal and prioritize hidden and unknown attackers at speed. |
Offer | |
Learn more about Fidelis Elevate | Learn more about Vectra AI |
Sample Customers | |
| First Midwest Bank | Tribune Media Group, Barry University, Aruba Networks, Good Technology, Riverbed, Santa Clara University, Securities Exchange, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association |
Top Industries | |
Computer Software Company37% Comms Service Provider18% Healthcare Company8% Insurance Company7% | Mining And Metals Company22% Retailer22% Energy/Utilities Company11% Financial Services Firm11% Computer Software Company31% Comms Service Provider24% Government6% Media Company4% |
Company Size | |
No Data Available | Midsize Enterprise20% Large Enterprise80% Small Business15% Midsize Enterprise21% Large Enterprise64% |
Find out what your peers are saying about Fidelis Elevate vs. Vectra AI and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
430,585 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our list of best Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) vendors.
We monitor all Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) 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.