Deep Instinct False Positive Rate

Compared to previous solutions, have use seen a lower false positive rate? If yes, by what percentage?

Chi Wing Wong
Regional Technical Manager at a retailer with 201-500 employees
After they introduced the behavior analysis engine, I even detected attacks via vulnerabilities in Microsoft. Its false positives are very low, because the behavior analysis engine double checks them.
For unknown malware, McAfee has a 20 to 30 percent fail detection rate. Symantec has a failed detection rate at 50 percent. Traps is better at ten percent, while Deep Instinct is at one to two percent. This difference is due to the behavior in the Deep Instinct engine.
View full review »
Puneet Gupta
Director at IT Junction
It has the lowest false-positive ratio that I have come across. I have only had one legitimate file that I had to whitelist. It was for one of the applications I was trying to install and integrate. But the false positive ratio is very low. Apart from that one, I haven't seen anything that blocks or doesn't allow.
View full review »
Robert Boles
Cybersecurity Expert at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
One of the most important things that we haven't highlighted yet is that it has a very low false-positive ratio. That is important because it means we're not wasting time. Because the false-positives are so low, it's not an issue for us. Some of the competing products literally have teams of hundreds of analysts breaking down threats or things that their tools are detecting. We're able to run that entire 20,000-endpoint base with just a handful of engineers. The time savings are substantial. Off the top of my head, I'm estimating that one of every 400 or 500 is a false-positive. There's one company that comes to mind and I know they have more than a couple of hundred analysts filtering through what they're flagging. I don't know if Deep Instinct has any analysts because they just don't have that issue.
View full review »
Sign Up with Email