We performed a comparison between Aruba IntroSpect and Cynet based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Splunk, Rapid7 and others in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA)."The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"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"
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"The most valuable feature is the end-user monitoring. If there is any abnormal behavior on the machine, the administrator will be alerted."
"Roaming feature, application control and firewall features."
"I haven't heard of any issues with stability."
"It is a very stable solution...It is a very scalable solution...The initial setup of Cynet was easy."
"Cynet's most valuable features are laptop and server performance, internal network monitoring, and external firewall lock management."
"If some unusual activity happens on the network, such as I open administrator sessions in a short duration of an hour on many computers in the lab, it sends me an alert about my network saying that one user opened three, four, or five sessions in one hour. Similarly, if I try to play with the disk size on a computer, it will send me an alert, and it will also stop the operation."
"I like that it is possible to use the solution to check more information about the users' devices."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that the configuration and the usage of the product are not so complicated. For people responsible for using this infrastructure for the first line of workstation monitoring, it's quite easy to use."
"We are very satisfied with the level of performance we get."
"I like that you can implement it in the managed service portfolio."
"I have found the continued support and pretty much all the features to be valuable. They all stand out as being positive. It continues to detect unusual activity when it's supposed to, and so far we haven't had any issues."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The support needs improvement."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The solution is not stable."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"I would like to see improvements made to the dashboard, where you can get the information with a simple click."
"The packet analyzer needs improvement."
"Technical support is a little slow."
"Linux servers are not supported."
"Management of the console could be simplified and made more user-friendly because right now it's not very easy to use."
"We'd like something that makes it easier to manage specific points."
"The reporting functionality in Cynet may not be as comprehensive or flexible as desired."
"Sometimes, it is necessary for me to make important changes to a hard drive of a computer, and because Cynet does not allow me to do that, I have to go to the console and remove the computer from the security group just for Cynet. After that, I have to wait for 10 or 15 minutes for that to take effect. I would like to be able to disable Cynet locally. I shouldn’t have to go to the console to find the PC and then take it out of the group and then add it again to the group. I should locally be able to disable Cynet on a computer with a password or something like that, but it is currently not possible."
"Automation could be improved, and orchestration could be added to the features."
"I'd like to see more data loss prevention within the product."
"Compliance reports need to improve."
Aruba IntroSpect is ranked 24th in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) while Cynet is ranked 4th in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) with 35 reviews. Aruba IntroSpect is rated 8.6, while Cynet is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Aruba IntroSpect writes "A straightforward setup for technical users and an overall good product". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". Aruba IntroSpect is most compared with Arista NDR, Cisco Secure Network Analytics, LogRhythm UEBA, Darktrace and SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer, whereas Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Check Point Harmony Endpoint.
See our list of best User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) 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.