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

Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs Deep Instinct Prevention Platform 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

Cybereason Endpoint Detecti...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
36th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (25th)
Deep Instinct Prevention Pl...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
40th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is 0.8%, down from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is 0.7%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

AtulChaurasia - PeerSpot reviewer
Scalable platform with intuitive features for detecting malicious files
The initial setup process is straightforward. We have to install the agent, create a package, and deploy it on servers. It has a prebuilt console managed by the cloud team of Cybereason. We don't have to worry about the console and concentrate on endpoint implementation. It takes ten days to deploy it on 10,000 devices.
Elena Yau - PeerSpot reviewer
Prevention, in advance, saves us remediation time
We have a PHI (protected health information) committee, and some of the things that we review on a weekly basis are incidents. For example, if there was malware or adware or some kind of phishing attempt, or even ransomware, we would have to investigate and see if there was any PHI impact. We've seen small things because some kind of adware made its way through the browser from some malicious link, and it's really hard to prevent those. We're putting more levels of filtering around that. There are some product development ideas that we have been working on alongside the DI team, and they've been super helpful. There are definitely a lot more little areas of improvement for the interface. Also, we have talked with the DI team about adding the forensic piece, which is what we do a lot. That would be added value and they've just recently provided more individuals to think about the roadmap. That's part of their strategy and one of the good features that they want to bring on. Hopefully, they can bring that to fruition and that will ease our workflow a little bit more. The additional predictive and prevention capabilities in the 3.0 version, that don't require special rules and configuration, help our organization. The only caveat is that when things get done automatically, I would appreciate more logging of what's happening in the background, if it is doing some kind of intervention. If we need to do some forensics, we should be able to backtrack from the log that gets uploaded to our cloud instance and see, forensically, what the root cause was. We should be able to see what instigated that trigger by DI and what exactly was done. That's a missing piece. It does a good job of preventing, but then we don't know what were the symptoms of the prevention. Let's say that there was like a PowerShell block. We'll see an indicator on the dashboard and we'll look at the logs and investigate. Sometimes we find that the logs that are captured locally on the endpoint itself are not very thorough. We were coached through our training with DI that, when troubleshooting, the DI team would always ask for the logs from the endpoint. We know what we need to do to look at something. But the logging for DI doesn't capture everything. There are some things that are missing. When it comes to root-cause analysis, or kill-chain analysis, and figuring out exactly what happened, it's very hard to do that right now on the product. I have used Carbon Black before and they're pretty good with the forensic analysis. That does save some efforts of my one engineer and myself when we have to go through the PHI committee. Right now, with Di, that feels like a blind spot. Another area for development is making the license clean-up a little bit easier. We always have to manually uninstall agents. If there were some way to remove the licensing and do better license management on the platform, that would help my team as well.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"It gives all the information in a clear response."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"What I find most valuable is the clarity of the platform."
"Their EDR solution, the ability to mitigate issues through their command line, is probably the best feature that we've had. We use that all the time. It's very useful for doing investigations."
"The dashboard is very good and you can consider it as an interactive UI."
"They do a very good job of providing multi-stage visualizations of malicious operations that immediately show all attack details across all devices and users. Since it is MalOp-centric model, you can see if there has been a similar operation across multiple machines. If it is the same thing appearing on multiple machines, you see all the machines and users affected in one screen."
"I haven't had any issues with the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The support is very good. They reply and respond very quickly."
"Its false positives are very low, because the behavior analysis engine double checks them."
"It has given us a more structured approach for detecting and preventing threats. It has machine learning-based detection and prevention. Their engines, in even older versions, are able to pick these viruses and malware. They have posted a lot of use cases online for detecting different viruses and malware that have been out for many years."
"The detection rate is very high. In all the testing with around 20 partners in different environments, quite a lot of them had installed with other anti-malware applications, like Sophos. This software can co-exist with those applications in the same machine. This is impressive."
"Deep Instinct's detection rate is close to 100 percent."
"Instead of having features like rollback and after-event actionable stuff, the whole premise and the context of the solution is to actually prevent these malicious attacks from happening to begin with.... The ability to prevent threats is the most appealing aspect. It absolutely, 100 percent helps with real-time prevention of unknown malware. That's the strength of the product."
"It has the lowest false-positive ratio that I have come across. I have only had one which was a 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."
 

Cons

"There can be problems with the EDI."
"The product's reporting isn't great."
"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."
"Compared to our previous endpoint, we have a lot more false positives and a lot more duplication of alerts. So we're chasing more alerts."
"I feel that the product lacks reporting features and needs improvement."
"Ad hoc higher-level reporting to senior management can be improved or can be implemented. That's definitely an area of improvement that they need to focus on."
"The integration with Microsoft solutions and Microsoft capabilities needs to be improved."
"Some features are too resource intensive."
"The interface on the endpoint could be a little more descriptive and more valuable. It doesn't always tell you the data you need to see. Improvement there would be very helpful."
"The Deep Instinct client stops working when you have two servers and you add high availability or Windows Failover Cluster mode. It doesn't work in a clustered mode. I haven't yet had time to go back and talk with their support and get it fixed. It would be good if they can make the installation independent of an actual user. Currently, its installation is dependent on the actual user being logged in. For example, a computer has to be logged in for the installation to happen. If it is not logged in, then on the cloud platform, it is going to show that the client is offline. On the management side of the cloud platform, we would like to have the administrators segregated by logical entities. We have told them that on their cloud management platform, we would like to be able to segregate clients into different logical entities or organizations so that the administrators are able to manage only those entities that are within their designated organization."
"When things get done automatically, I would appreciate more logging of what's happening in the background... we should be able to backtrack from the log that gets uploaded to our cloud instance and see, forensically, what the root cause was."
"Reporting on incidents needs improvement."
"Due to the nature of deep learning, it’s sometimes difficult to determine why the AI model has blocked a specific file, although this has improved over time."
"I think it's probably the administration, especially the administration platform, which could be improved in the solution. It's clunky and hard to navigate, especially for inexperienced technicians."
"I would like a little more training for the admins."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"The pricing is manageable."
"In terms of pricing, it's a good solution."
"I do not have experience with the licensing of the product."
"I had to go through a third-party to purchase it, which I wasn't really pleased about."
"Though it is not the cheapest solution but it fits our budget. We pay an annual licensing fee."
"This product is somewhat expensive and should be cheaper."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing an eight."
"If I include the false positive rate and the detection rate in the comparison, Deep Instinct is worth its price."
"In comparison to the other products out there, it's exceptionally competitively priced. When you consider the lower administrative overhead that it facilitates, it's an absolute value."
"We are a nonprofit. The MSP had provides pretty decent nonprofit rates for us. This was one of the key factors that made us choose Deep Instinct over its competitors who were significantly more expensive."
"Their pricing is very competitive. It is good, fair, and a lot cheaper than what we were doing with Cylance."
"One thing about their licensing program that I like is that just one covers the server as well as on the endpoint as well as mobile devices. There is no complexity in calculating how many SKUs I need for mobile, for laptop, for desktop, and for servers. It's very simple and that makes it much easier to budget."
"Its pricing is too high, but that is not because of the product. It is expensive because of the cost of the console. You need a console to control the whole thing, but the console is expensive. You have to split this cost among all possible users. Normally, to be able to make it economically attractive, you need at least 1,000 agents, PCs, or users. If you have a customer with 300 to 500 agents, PCs, or users, it becomes too pricey."
"The pricing is a little bit expensive but we are satisfied with DI's performance."
"There are no additional costs on the price, and our company has a support contract, which bundles in those services anyway."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Healthcare Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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?
We use it to improve detection in the whole industrial sector. We are a big energy company. Across multiple endpoints, we deploy the EDR to secure all, improve detection, and also attempt to automa...
What do you like most about Deep Instinct?
The product offers integration capabilities and is also easy to use.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Deep Instinct?
There is a need for customers of the product to pay towards the licensing costs of the tool.
What needs improvement with Deep Instinct?
The solution's stability is good. If the tool was able to provide fine-tuning capabilities from the product's end depending on the environment of its user, then it would be a good improvement in th...
 

Also Known As

Cybereason EDR, Cybereason Deep Detect & Respond
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Lockheed Martin, Spark Capital, DocuSign, Softbank Capital
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. Deep Instinct Prevention Platform and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.