Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cymulate vs MetaDefender comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cymulate
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
9th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) (1st), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (10th), Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (2nd)
MetaDefender
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
38th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (37th), Anti-Malware Tools (37th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (19th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) category, the mindshare of Cymulate is 1.5%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of MetaDefender is 1.5%, down from 1.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Cymulate1.5%
MetaDefender1.5%
Other97.0%
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
 

Featured Reviews

SB
Security Architec at Shikun & Binui
Support and integration enhance security posture over three years
I don't know if there's something that could be improved. They surprise me. As I mentioned, I returned a month ago. I haven't fully investigated the complete system yet. I must say that we have been with them for around three years. This is amazing because throughout these three years, they have supported us every week. We meet weekly to review results and fix issues together. Apart from occasional days off, this weekly support has been consistent for three years. It's remarkable because many products are sold and then the product teams forget about you, but this isn't the case with Cymulate.
Eido Ben Noun - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Architect at Diffiesec
Multi‑engine detection has significantly improved secure file transfers and threat prevention
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"With Cymulate, the best features are the capacity to test the EDR or malware, anti-malware solution."
"Cymulate has positively impacted our organization by helping us to take care of the efficacy and reviewing the policies and configuration."
"The security validation feature helps my organization in assessing our security posture."
"The most valuable feature for us is the zero-day."
"Cymulate is easy to set up, install, and configure."
"The reporting capabilities are very good."
"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
"I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done."
 

Cons

"The way Cymulate works for EDR could be improved, as it drops payload and requires action from the EDR console for remediation, which can block the whole process of Cymulate execution."
"The product must provide consultancy for initial setup."
"The cost can be quite high, and it impacts scalability as more simulations require additional expenses."
"We have had some trouble with the agents."
"The reporting process requires significant improvement as it often takes longer than expected and the quality is lacking."
"I will be honest, we have it, but in the last year, I didn't maintain the system until a month ago."
"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Cymulate's services are expensive."
"The product is affordable."
"We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Healthcare Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Large Enterprise3
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cymulate?
The most valuable feature for us is the zero-day.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cymulate?
I don't know if it's expensive. It depends on the modules that you want, or the time, because they give you a tenant. A tenant for you.
What needs improvement with Cymulate?
I don't know if that helped with quick decision making for my security team because I am the security team and you must have a dedicated team to work with this tool. I don't use the analytics modul...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Euronext, YMCA, Telit, Nemours 
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, Recorded Future, VirusTotal and others in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP). Updated: December 2025.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.