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

CrowdStrike Falcon Sandbox vs MetaDefender comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 14, 2025

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

CrowdStrike Falcon Sandbox
Ranking in Anti-Malware Tools
11th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
MetaDefender
Ranking in Anti-Malware Tools
37th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (37th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (38th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (19th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Anti-Malware Tools category, the mindshare of CrowdStrike Falcon Sandbox is 1.5%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of MetaDefender is 1.4%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Anti-Malware Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
CrowdStrike Falcon Sandbox1.5%
MetaDefender1.4%
Other97.1%
Anti-Malware Tools
 

Featured Reviews

PK
IT Manager at Gigabit Technologies Pvt Ltd
Praises the user-friendly interface but experiences frequent deployment challenges
The advantages of CrowdStrike Falcon Sandbox are if Falcon does not detect, it automatically sandboxes unknown detections and provides us with signatures to mitigate those detections.Behavioral monitoring detects when a user works on the same Excel and PDF files; if the solution finds unbehavioral detections in those files or temp files, it gets blocked.This is a cloud solution, and because of that, it's not our responsibility for maintenance since the CrowdStrike Falcon team automatically upgrades the solutions.There are no slowness issues from CrowdStrike Falcon Sandbox. This is a SaaS solution.
Eido Ben Noun - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Architect at Diffiesec
Multi‑engine detection has significantly improved secure file transfers and threat prevention
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We have seen returns on our investment in more than thousands of instances, which is the most important part for us."
"It provides a safe way to analyze and review documents that may have sensitive information without uploading them to a public platform. Additionally, provides an easy way to spin up a VM without requiring additional resources and patching of personal or team-managed virtualization."
"CrowdStrike is an excellent tool for managing all endpoint-related security tasks."
"On a scale of 1-10, I rate CrowdStrike Falcon Sandbox a 10 out of 10."
"I don't have any suggestions, because the solution is company-maintained and I believe the company is adopting every feature based on their needs and requirements."
"The cloud deployment of CrowdStrike Falcon Sandbox benefits my organization because we can access it from anywhere and at any time we can get the information."
"The most valuable features include malware detection, threat rating related to files, studying the metadata of the files, and providing threat feeds to the endpoint."
"I find the notifications and alerts received from CrowdStrike server to be invaluable."
"I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done."
"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
 

Cons

"The product needs integration with SOAR products to add more integration points, which is important for various clients."
"The technical support is medium - they could improve, as communication is sometimes slow or late. There are missing detections that other tools catch. For improvements, we need easier ways to view full incident information and better presentation of data. Adding risk indicators for incidents would help decide on immediate actions. The platform should provide more information about incident risks to help less knowledgeable staff make decisions."
"One of the valuable features of the solution is to impressively detect threats without any impact on the end point performance. The solution ensures that the end users have a seamless experience."
"The CrowdStrike support is not good; the support team does not come remotely, and we repeatedly ask them to collect logs and analyze them before providing a solution via email."
"As for room for improvement, we can mention that maybe some additional integrations will be beneficial to cover the whole use cases."
"While CrowdStrike is a powerful tool, the user interface is cluttered with many features, making it challenging to navigate."
"As of now, there is nothing specific in need of improvement."
"While CrowdStrike is a powerful tool, the user interface is cluttered with many features, making it challenging to navigate."
"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"CrowdStrike Falcon Sandbox is not cheap; however, whether it should be more affordable is a decision best left to the company."
"Price-wise, the tool is a bit above mid-range, maybe 7 out of 10, where 10 is the most expensive."
"We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Anti-Malware Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Educational Organization
8%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Healthcare Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise3
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about CrowdStrike Falcon Sandbox?
I don't have any suggestions, because the solution is company-maintained and I believe the company is adopting every feature based on their needs and requirements.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CrowdStrike Falcon Sandbox?
I am not sure if there is a financial benefit; maybe, maybe not, as we did not evaluate that aspect. I think it can be expensive, but it depends on the products.
What needs improvement with CrowdStrike Falcon Sandbox?
As for room for improvement, we can mention that maybe some additional integrations will be beneficial to cover the whole use cases.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, Check Point Software Technologies and others in Anti-Malware Tools. Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.