We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and Intercept X Endpoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The stability is very good."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"We didn't have the visibility that we now have. It has increased our visibility by a lot. So, we put a lot more time into really looking at our environment and what is happening throughout our different networks. It has increased our visibility by around fivefold."
"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."
"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."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"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."
"The solution is efficient."
"Immediately we can pick up the computers in the network if any malicious operation that is triggered."
"The dashboard is very good and you can consider it as an interactive UI."
"The most valuable features are ease of use and the GUI."
"It does its job — it protects us from viruses. We don't really interact with it very much."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is less hash-based than competitors."
"We find the app control and its threat protection to be the best features."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"The product is user-friendly."
"It's a good antivirus software and has a lot of features. It now integrates with their on-premises firewall, which is perfect."
"After that, the client switched to Sophos to get the protection they lacked. It either works or it doesn’t and Sophos works."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The support needs improvement."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"The SIEM could be improved."
"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."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"There can be problems with the EDI."
"It should be more stable, and the sensor needs improvement in terms of connectivity."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"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."
"They need to improve their technical support services."
"The product's reporting isn't great."
"Cybereason does not have sandbox functionality."
"The integration with Microsoft solutions and Microsoft capabilities needs to be improved."
"It's a bit heavy on the computers. So once you install it, the computer slows down. It is a resource-intensive solution."
"I recommend that Intercept X Endpoint should include a patch assessment feature. Various vendors offer virtual patching solutions, which could be a game-changer, especially for the financial sector where frequent service restarts are challenging. These solutions allow patching servers without the need for restarts. Incorporating these features into Intercept X Endpoint would enhance its effectiveness in securing endpoints and servers."
"The tool is not stable on Linux systems."
"The choices offered for the on-premises and cloud-based platforms are the reverse of each other."
"Through Sophos Central I would like to see the ability to zero in and produce a report about the challenges being faced by a particular machine and user, to know if a virus is appearing only on that specific machine or also on others."
"From the management side, we receive detailed information. Sophos has many features, such as Threat Hunting but that comes with the XDR version of the solution. There's Sophos Intercept X and then there's Sophos Intercept X with XDR technology. We bought the XDR and then now the MTR, Managed Threat Response version available too. They have different packages for clients which gives them different options to pick from. If Sophos could combine more features into one package it would be beneficial."
"Sophos needs to create a YouTube channel with educational material for technicians or engineers."
"The deployment part needs to be improved."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 42nd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 19 reviews while Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 101 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response writes "It has helped us become more knowledgeable about our environment and aware of threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Darktrace and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Seqrite Endpoint Security. See our Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. Intercept X Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.