We performed a comparison between Cynet and Deep Instinct Prevention Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"It is stable and scalable."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"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."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The visibility it gives is excellent."
"I like that it is possible to use the solution to check more information about the users' devices."
"I like the Cynet Correlator™ feature."
"The product is very easy to use. Customers really appreciate that."
"The product has valuable front-end features."
"I have found the continued support and pretty much all the features to be valuable. They all stand out as being positive. It continues to detect unusual activity when it's supposed to, and so far we haven't had any issues."
"Cynet is unique in that it has almost everything included and it was built up from the ground, instead of a bundle of purchased and composed modules. It gives you easier very good visibility than Sentinel One as well as a lower maintenance burden."
"It is a very stable solution...It is a very scalable solution...The initial setup of Cynet was easy."
"The most important thing is that it is for prevention. It prevents attacks of any type of malware. Normally, what we've seen in other products is that they are not for prevention. They isolate a possible threat that they don't understand or know about, and then they check it with our database to see if it needs any correction or elimination. This means that the threat is already inside a customer's base, whereas Deep Instinct prevents a threat from getting in. Prevention is basically done by an agent in each installation, PCU, or product. An agent has its own intelligence to be able to detect if it should stop a threat or not. It has been taught. It is like a brain that has been taught to react according to any possible threat. Deep Instinct is very light. It doesn't take too much CPU attention or memory. It doesn't slow down the performance. You don't really realize any change in the performance, which makes it very different from other solutions. They are usually heavy for the users."
"Its false positives are very low, because the behavior analysis engine double checks them."
"It has a very low false-positive ratio. That is important because it means we're not wasting time... We're able to run that entire 20,000-endpoint base with just a handful of engineers."
"It has given us a more structured approach for detecting and preventing threats. It has machine learning-based detection and prevention. Their engines, in even older versions, are able to pick these viruses and malware. They have posted a lot of use cases online for detecting different viruses and malware that have been out for many years."
"When we were looking at Carbon Black and Sophos, the prevention pieces weren't as strong when compared to DI, which is why we decided to go with DI... I would rather have a product that does the prevention up front and saves me the effort of having to wipe someone's workstation."
"The detection rate is very high. In all the testing with around 20 partners in different environments, quite a lot of them had installed with other anti-malware applications, like Sophos. This software can co-exist with those applications in the same machine. This is impressive."
"Deep Instinct complements the solutions we already have. You don't need to rip and replace any antivirus or endpoint that you have. It's easy to use and it's easy to have it side-by-side with other solutions. That makes it really easy to have an additional level of protection, rather than to hassle with doing solution migration."
"This solution is good at catching viruses and it's very effective and lightweight, which are all things that you want in an antivirus product."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"The support needs improvement."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"The reporting functionality in Cynet may not be as comprehensive or flexible as desired."
"I'd like to see more data loss prevention within the product."
"An administration feature will be useful for Cynet."
"Management of the console could be simplified and made more user-friendly because right now it's not very easy to use."
"I would like to see more emphasis on building the data lake and storing all endpoint data in the enterprise data lake so that data mining can be performed"
"Sometimes, it is necessary for me to make important changes to a hard drive of a computer, and because Cynet does not allow me to do that, I have to go to the console and remove the computer from the security group just for Cynet. After that, I have to wait for 10 or 15 minutes for that to take effect. I would like to be able to disable Cynet locally. I shouldn’t have to go to the console to find the PC and then take it out of the group and then add it again to the group. I should locally be able to disable Cynet on a computer with a password or something like that, but it is currently not possible."
"They have automated response capability, and they're moving more and more into SOAR capability. They have built-in deception technology with host-file users, phantoms, etc. We used to call them honeypots. So, they're on target. They're doing a really good job, and they should continue to improve with SOAR."
"Increased application for SOAR abilities across interconnected devices would be a welcome improvement."
"Reporting on incidents needs improvement."
"Its support for Linux and Unix operating systems can be improved. Currently, they cover macOS and Windows, but they don't cover Linux and some of the Unix products. Pricing is also an issue. Its pricing is not as aggressive as it could be, and its price makes it difficult to sell. Customers feel that they can get an antivirus for a lower price, even though it is not a similar product. It is technically different. Their SLAs can be better. They have to give you 24/7 support, but their SLAs are not very good. They should be better documented, and the offerings should also be a little bit better. What happens is that the SLAs end up in the hands of the intermediary, seller, or the local partner of Deep Instinct in a country. The customers want very fast SLAs in a very short time, but Deep Instinct doesn't give them at the same speed. Having said that, SLAs are important when you have a lot of issues, but this product doesn't have too many issues, so it is not a big concern. However, for a customer who doesn't know the product, it could be a concern."
"I would like a little more training for the admins."
"Some features are too resource intensive."
"When things get done automatically, I would appreciate more logging of what's happening in the background... we should be able to backtrack from the log that gets uploaded to our cloud instance and see, forensically, what the root cause was."
"If the tool was able to provide fine-tuning capabilities from the product's end depending on the environment of its user, then it would be a good improvement in the solution."
"I think it's probably the administration, especially the administration platform, which could be improved in the solution. It's clunky and hard to navigate, especially for inexperienced technicians."
"The interface on the endpoint could be a little more descriptive and more valuable. It doesn't always tell you the data you need to see. Improvement there would be very helpful."
More Deep Instinct Prevention Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cynet is ranked 15th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 35 reviews while Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is ranked 21st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 18 reviews. Cynet is rated 8.8, while Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Deep Instinct Prevention Platform writes "Bolsters prevention with great detection and response capabilities". Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert, whereas Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CylancePROTECT and Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Optimum. See our Cynet vs. Deep Instinct Prevention Platform report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.