We performed a comparison between CylanceOPTICS and Digital Guardian based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The stability is very good."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"It is stable and scalable."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"It automatically blocks the threats, helping us investigate if they harm the environment."
"The initial setup was fairly straightforward. To get a large health care organization sorted, we had to create exemptions because some of the scripts and some of the automations were broken."
"CylanceOPTICS is pretty stable."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to respond to zero-day and unknown threats."
"It's pretty unintrusive"
"Cylance is not a signature-based protection solution and instead works proactively using AI and ML models to patrol for malicious behavior."
"I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. I would give it a close ten as possible because, like SentinelOne, I've seen incompatibility. Whereas Cylance, I've seen none."
"It is a bit early in our evaluation process to give proper feedback, although so far, the overall feedback is good."
"Some of the features that are highly appreciated are its robust data loss prevention capabilities, flexible deployment options, and the ability to monitor data transfer across multiple vectors."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"It has been scalable."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The support needs improvement."
"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."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"Our customers would like to see more automation with respect to how threats are handled once they have been detected."
"The detection component is something that they have to work on."
"The reporting is very weak and not very good at all."
"Too many false positives are reported."
"The tools are ineffective. It flags a lot of things. To give you an example, it detected Google Chrome and blocked the user's access to it. That it mistook for malicious, which turned out to be a false positive."
"CylanceOPTICS could benefit from more granular control in the timeline-building process. Ideally, users would be able to drill deeper into the analysis rather than have the machine dictate the direction."
"The product's initial setup process could be easy."
"One minor issue that somebody mentioned was that they didn't like their management console."
"The room for improvement with Digital Guardian is that it will be better with the Linux agent because it is the only DLP solution for Linux workstations. It still needs to upgrade the agents to the latest version for the Linux kernel."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"Digital Guardian is an excellent solution but our experience with the partner has been the most horrible experience we have ever had with any partner."
"When considering potential areas for improvement, it may be beneficial for Digital Guardian to optimize its processes and reduce the computational demands on the system, particularly with regard to high CPU usage. Although Digital Guardian offers numerous benefits, it can consume a substantial amount of RAM and CPU power."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"It would be helpful if there was an on-premise version of the solution for companies that cannot use the cloud, such as government sectors."
"There are a lot of issues with the current version of the Endpoint agent. It's not stable, it's resource-consuming, and there are some performance issues. If they could improve the stability of the agent it would be great."
CylanceOPTICS is ranked 33rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 10 reviews while Digital Guardian is ranked 29th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 11 reviews. CylanceOPTICS is rated 7.6, while Digital Guardian is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of CylanceOPTICS writes "Enables the isolation and inoculation of infected machines, offering a practical solution for dealing with threats and preventing their spread within the environment". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". CylanceOPTICS is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, CrowdStrike Falcon and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our CylanceOPTICS vs. Digital Guardian report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.
