We compared CylancePROTECT and Intercept X Endpoint (Sophos) based on our users reviews in five parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: CylancePROTECT and Sophos' Intercept X Endpoint are both endpoint security solutions that provide advanced technology and protection against threats. CylancePROTECT is appreciated for its simple deployment and implementation, accurate threat detection, and user-friendly dashboard. However, it is considered expensive and some have concerns about the quality of support. On the other hand, Intercept X Endpoint offers multi-platform capability, centralized management, and 24/7 monitoring. It also has fair pricing and helpful technical support. Suggestions for improvements include installation speed, performance impact, and pricing. In summary, CylancePROTECT prioritizes technological advancements while Intercept X Endpoint focuses on multi-platform capability and effective threat management.
"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."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"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."
"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 console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"CylancePROTECT works on AI technology, is always up to date, and uses very few resources on your devices."
"In most cases, the solution's ability to detect in the MITRE framework, and its ability to be able to detect attacks in any one of seven or eight different areas of the life cycle of an attack is very useful."
"Blackberry Protect offers endpoint protection. It's easy to deploy. It's scalable and stable."
"What's most valuable in CylancePROTECT is the optics feature. I also like its easy-to-use and user-friendly dashboard and monitoring system."
"We are quite security-focused. Blackberry Protect as an endpoint solution for our service really delivers what we are expecting."
"Centralized dashboard online which can be used for managing a huge product."
"I rate the tool a ten out of ten when it comes to the ease of use or management part."
"It actively monitors the behavior and activity of processes and will, without hesitation, terminate at root anything it determines to be suspect."
"The most valuable features are the range and restriction."
"Machine learning is used to detect the threat and it does so by prioritizing the suspicious activities."
"The product efficiently prevents data leakages."
"There are additional security features in Sophos Intercept X as well as proxy rules and settings that help us in minimizing the sites that our agents can go to, even after their work hours."
"Solution for endpoint detection and response, with good stability and scalability. Users also benefit from email protection and data loss prevention."
"The solution's initial setup process was straightforward."
"The most valuable features of Intercept X are server lockdown, auto-remediation, and encryption monitoring."
"It is very easy to set up and easy to use. It is also not resource-intensive."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"The solution is not stable."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"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"
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The high price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required. The product's price should be more competitive."
"The AI of CylancePROTECT has room for improvement. I'm on a trial license of SentinelOne, and its AI is much better than what's on CylancePROTECT."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved."
"The initial deployment was quite complicated."
"We would like to see secure integration and multi-factor authentication to be able to access the administration dashboard."
"It's a good solution but some features just need to be updated."
"It should have better support for Windows and Mac."
"It was not effective. There were a lot of false positives, even when we use Adobe, and everybody uses Adobe, which is not a threat."
"There should be a report including a flowchart or diagram. It will be useful to evaluate the software’s effectiveness."
"Integration with firewall solutions could be better."
"The performance offered by the product needs improvement."
"The detection and the AI capabilities should be improved upon."
"The problem is that if you have a lot of different components going on, each managed under a different umbrella, then you're going to be spending a lot of time hopping back and forth between the different components to see, "Well, I got hit here. What did my firewall see? I got hit in the firewall, the firewall says it allowed that attack in, did it land on anything to compromise any of my endpoints?""
"We are not able to merge the sub-estates. If we create multiple sub-states and there may be instances where a user is in a different sub-state, it may not be possible for us to relocate that user from one sub-state to another through the console. We have to merge them manually which is not ideal."
"Installing Sophos Intercept X was not as straightforward, as we had to ask support and had to work with an integrator, though the process didn't take much time, e.g. it was completed within one hour."
"Technical support can be improved. There could be shared support, i.e. where someone in Egypt can respond."
CylancePROTECT is ranked 27th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 39 reviews while Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 101 reviews. CylancePROTECT is rated 8.0, while Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of CylancePROTECT writes "Ensures advanced AI-driven threat detection to provide robust endpoint security, effectively preventing both known and unknown threats with minimal impact on system performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". CylancePROTECT is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, 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 CylancePROTECT vs. Intercept X Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.