We performed a comparison between CylanceOPTICS and Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response 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."Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"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."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"It is a bit early in our evaluation process to give proper feedback, although so far, the overall feedback is good."
"The solution has a high level of trust in the industry."
"It automatically blocks the threats, helping us investigate if they harm the environment."
"CylanceOPTICS is pretty stable."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to respond to zero-day and unknown threats."
"Cylance is not a signature-based protection solution and instead works proactively using AI and ML models to patrol for malicious behavior."
"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."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"Kaspersky offers more visible and comprehensive features compared to other products."
"One of the good features is the provider's Faulting capability. If any of our systems detect malware, we can check the behavior of the malware by sending it to Kaspersky's sandbox environment. This helps us assess how destructive the malware is. After analyzing it, we can create use cases and protection measures based on that behavior. So, this is the best feature of Kaspersky."
"The product is integrated with endpoint protection. We don't have to implement a separate technology. It provides visibility over the endpoints."
"It is a stable solution...It is a very scalable solution."
"From my point of view, one of the best aspects of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is its high detection rate, which surpasses many other solutions. Its valuable features include behavior detection, threat prevention, device control, adaptive anomaly control, and centralized protection detection."
"The tool's performance and prevention are amazing."
"It downloads essential security patches that are valuable for my PC."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"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."
"The solution is not stable."
"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"
"Our customers would like to see more automation with respect to how threats are handled once they have been detected."
"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 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."
"The product's technical support is slow."
"The reporting is very weak and not very good at all."
"The technical support could be improved although it's probably better than you get with a lot of the other traditional antivirus solutions"
"Too many false positives are reported."
"The product's initial setup process could be easy."
"There is room for improvement in the support."
"I want to be able to use the product as a patch management tool for my endpoints since it is an area that is not working effectively for me."
"Enhancing user-friendliness should be a priority."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response needs vast resources on the central node. Not all maintenance tasks are in the GUI, so we often use commands. The lack of documentation for these processes means we frequently reach out to support, open tickets, and run complex CLI commands. It's not the most straightforward process. It should also improve stability."
"There are certain shortcomings with the UI of the solution. The UI is not at all user-friendly."
"It needs improvement in communication between the network and endpoint, as well as between endpoint and server."
"One of the main areas where the tool could improve is its integration capabilities. For example, I find it challenging to integrate it with other solutions. It would be helpful if the tool could make it more open to integration with other tools."
"Kaspersky EDR could be improved by adding network detection capabilities to enhance convenience and security."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
CylanceOPTICS is ranked 33rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 10 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is ranked 24th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 15 reviews. CylanceOPTICS is rated 7.6, while Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is rated 8.0. 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 Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response writes "Provides the ability to send detected malware to Kaspersky's sandbox environment for behavioral analysis". CylanceOPTICS is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is most compared with Sangfor Endpoint Secure and CrowdStrike Falcon. See our CylanceOPTICS vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response 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.
