Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection vs Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Bitdefender Hypervisor Intr...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
63rd
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (61st)
Cybereason Endpoint Detecti...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
41st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (34th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is 0.8%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response0.8%
Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection0.2%
Other99.0%
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

Muhammad-Imran - PeerSpot reviewer
Stable but bad technical support, and an out of date database
We primarily use the solution to protect our business The solution protects us so that we have regular security from attacks. It prevents disasters from happening on our system. The endpoint protection is the solution's most valuable feature. The database needs improvement. It needs to be…
Ivan Burke - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers useful threat hunting and response capabilities but struggles to justify cost for smaller deployments
I mostly work with incident response, so I work with a bunch of them interchangeably, but mostly with the EDR components; I also get involved with some of the XDR components, especially for the cloud. Regarding analysis features, such as deep behavioral detection, I do use it sometimes; I usually don't use the automated version of it, as I prefer threat hunting directly, depending on if the season is available. I know some of them have pretty good analytics engines, but I tend to do the threat hunting on my own. I manage incident response for a bunch of companies, so some of them have Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response integrated into Sentinel, some into Fortinet, and others into various tools. When considering cost-effectiveness, their pricing structure works such that if you're a large organization with more than a thousand endpoints to deploy to, then Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is worthwhile. But for anything less than 300, it's too expensive; obviously, the more you buy, the better the price, making it cheaper for you. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response best fits enterprise-level businesses such as huge corporations; however, we are in the process of removing it from many of our endpoint clients because it's not really showing enough value for them at the moment. We're trying to see how we can improve it with some of our clients, but at the moment, it's struggling compared to other EDR solutions that we have deployed. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response a six.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The endpoint protection is the solution's most valuable feature."
"The solution has exchange protection. It has a content control, device control, a firewall, and anti-malware as well. They are all quite valuable features for us."
"I like the simplicity of this solution and the fact that it saves us time. The deployment was really straightforward and useful and I am impressed by the anti-virus endpoint detection and response offered by this solution."
"The most valuable feature is the capability of the command used by the machine so that we see the kind of performance that is running."
"What I like most about Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is the support because the support is good. The solution is also easy to use, and it has a dashboard. Everything is good, and there's no problem with it."
"What I find most valuable is the clarity of the platform. It is very straightforward."
"I haven't had any issues with the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Cybereason absolutely enables us to mitigate and isolate on the fly. Our managed detection response telemetry has dropped dramatically since we began using it. It's very top-of-mind. We were running some tabletop exercises and none of the detections were getting triggered by the managed security services provider. So we needed to find a solution that would trigger high-fidelity alerts. That was Cybereason and it dramatically changed our landscape from the detection and response perspective."
"Cybereason's threat hunting and investigation are the most valuable features. Threat hunting is a user-friendly feature that keeps you safe. Investigation offers an added value that I haven't seen with other EDR services. It allows you to find specific policy problems within your environment."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
 

Cons

"The database needs improvement. It needs to be updated quite a bit."
"There needs to be better integration with the environment. Especially, for the active directory and also for keeping up with the changes from Microsoft. We use a lot of Microsoft OS. I have noted that sometimes they lag behind Microsoft updates. For example, when with Windows 10. I had some issues with deploying to Windows 10 because the solution was behind in updating their own services to match the Microsoft release."
"There are blurred lines between anti-virus and endpoint detection so I would say it can be confusing when you are considering buying this program. I would like to see that being explained better to the customer."
"The deployment on individual endpoints is more geared toward larger organizations. It might prove to be a bit too complicated for a smaller organization. You need to know what you're doing when you're deploying the sensor."
"It initially took some time to deploy."
"The integration with Microsoft solutions and Microsoft capabilities needs to be improved."
"I feel it is a shame that I cannot create groups of groups with inheritance."
"Its Microsoft PowerShell protections still need some compatibility improvements. We have run across just a few. It is compatible with 90% of what we have in our network, but there is that 10% that we are still struggling with as far as compatibility with the type of PowerShell scripts needed to run our day-to-day business."
"I would like to see improvements on the operational side, specifically in grouping."
"There can be problems with the EDI."
"What needs to improve in Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and what I'd like to see in its next release is a centralized dashboard that allows you to view what is there, similar to what's on Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager: a beautiful display and reporting. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response has to start with the compliance, the homepage, etc. Everything should be there and should be customizable. The options should be there. The tool is very good currently, but visibility for IT administrators is lacking and needs to be worked on."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There's a yearly cost for licensing. For us, that comes to $1,400. There are no additional costs beyond the license itself."
"In terms of cost, this is a good choice for our needs."
"In terms of pricing, it's a good solution."
"I had to go through a third-party to purchase it, which I wasn't really pleased about."
"We considered a few other solutions. Some were ridiculously overpriced, while others didn't have solutions for Mac endpoints. That was a deal-breaker because most of our organization is on Mac. It came down to two vendors: Cybereason and another. They had similar pitches and almost identical approaches, but in the end, Cybereason gave us the best value for our money."
"This product is somewhat expensive and should be cheaper."
"I do not have experience with the licensing of the product."
"Though it is not the cheapest solution but it fits our budget. We pay an annual licensing fee."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing an eight."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response?
Comparison with other products showed it be cheaper than some larger competitors. Set up cost for us were cheaper as we already had users experienced with the product in other business units. Initi...
What is your primary use case for Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response?
My main use case for Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is mostly for incident response.
 

Also Known As

HVI
Cybereason EDR, Cybereason Deep Detect & Respond
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Kansas Development Finance Authority (KDFA), Quilvest
Lockheed Martin, Spark Capital, DocuSign, Softbank Capital
Find out what your peers are saying about Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection vs. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.