We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiEDR and Intercept X Endpoint 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 console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The stability is very good."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"It is a very scalable solution."
"The most valuable features of Intercept X are server lockdown, auto-remediation, and encryption monitoring."
"The most valuable feature of Intercept X its ability to stay ahead of the infection. By the time the ransomware spreads to the next machine in line, the data has already been encrypted on that workstation. It didn't matter what the ransomware did because could go in and get it back."
"Anti-virus captures malicious threats and an aggressive next generation firewall."
"It is easy to interact with, and its cost is also good."
"The solution has very good usability."
"The thing that I like about it is the synchronized security. You can tie endpoint protection and firewalls and a whole range of other services and products. You can get your servers taken in under this."
"The pricing is fair. It's not too costly for our small organization."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"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."
"The solution is not stable."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"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"
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"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."
"It would be better if it can automatically generate a report for each and every user so that the users get to know the things that shouldn't be accessed from their PCs. It can have information about malicious and non-malicious sites so users are aware of them, and they don't access malicious websites. Such reports can be generated at the end of the day. We should also be able to get through to their support team quickly. Currently, it takes more than half an hour to get through to a technical person."
"Features that should be improved in the upgrade involve the excessive consumption of the the solution's processor, RAM and resources."
"The choices offered for the on-premises and cloud-based platforms are the reverse of each other."
"We had some initial problems with our deployment, and they were more around uninstalling Sophos Basic and installing Sophos Intercept X. We had some challenges with some of the uninstallation scripts. They can improve the deployment of Sophos Intercept X when there is already an existing Sophos version. They can also provide more information in the form of best practices and lessons learned from previous findings. A knowledge base with this type of information would be helpful."
"The endpoint detection and response (EDR) technology has room for improvement because the information that it gives us to resolve our problems is poor nowadays."
"Intercept X could enhance its support services, particularly in terms of response time and resource allocation."
"It's a challenge to do system maintenance work on a notebook. You always have to disable Sophos first."
"It consumes a lot of resources, and something needs to be done for that."
Fortinet FortiEDR is ranked 13th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 30 reviews while Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 4th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 101 reviews. Fortinet FortiEDR is rated 8.0, while Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiEDR writes "A proactive solution that works as a proactive upgrade from a firewall". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". Fortinet FortiEDR is most compared with Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Bitdefender GravityZone EDR, whereas Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Seqrite Endpoint Security. See our Fortinet FortiEDR vs. Intercept X Endpoint 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.