We performed a comparison between CylanceOPTICS and Sangfor Endpoint Secure 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."NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"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."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"CylanceOPTICS is easy to use."
"It is a bit early in our evaluation process to give proper feedback, although so far, the overall feedback is good."
"It's pretty unintrusive"
"The solution has a high level of trust in the industry."
"Cylance is not a signature-based protection solution and instead works proactively using AI and ML models to patrol for malicious behavior."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to respond to zero-day and unknown threats."
"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."
"The user-friendliness of Sangfor Endpoint Secure is particularly impressive. Even with basic technical knowledge, users can easily navigate the system, make changes, and implement updates."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"What stands out to me is the dual-end user interface they provide."
"The tool's most valuable features are control access, endpoint security, and load balancing of ISPs."
"We use the product for network protection from any malicious threat."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure has some good policy certificates."
"The most valuable feature I have found in the system is its comprehensive end-to-end protection."
"Detections could be improved."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The solution is not stable."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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."
"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."
"One minor issue that somebody mentioned was that they didn't like their management console."
"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."
"The technical support could be improved although it's probably better than you get with a lot of the other traditional antivirus solutions"
"The reporting is very weak and not very good at all."
"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."
"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."
"It is complicated to establish a tunnel due to technical issues in the VPN system."
"There are a few areas for improvement. We have encountered licensing issues on occasion, and sometimes updates don't apply properly."
"It would be much more convenient if the migration tool could be installed directly on the customer's VMs, enabling a smoother migration process to the new infrastructure, with potential restrictions addressed accordingly."
"Sometimes, the VPN is not secure and doesn't work properly in Sangfor Endpoint Secure."
"Currently, the tool lacks reporting functionalities."
"I believe Sangfor Endpoint Secure could improve in terms of its user interface and management capabilities."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure performs poorly."
CylanceOPTICS is ranked 33rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 10 reviews while Sangfor Endpoint Secure is ranked 30th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 7 reviews. CylanceOPTICS is rated 7.6, while Sangfor Endpoint Secure 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 Sangfor Endpoint Secure writes "Provides a unified and multi-layer security solution". CylanceOPTICS is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Sangfor Endpoint Secure is most compared with Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon, Open EDR and Bitdefender GravityZone EDR. See our CylanceOPTICS vs. Sangfor Endpoint Secure 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.