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

Fidelis Elevate vs WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 2024

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

Fidelis Elevate
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
35th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Threat Deception Platforms (6th), SSL/TLS Decryption (2nd), Network Detection and Response (NDR) (14th), Managed Detection and Response (MDR) (25th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (23rd)
WithSecure Elements Endpoin...
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
48th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) category, the mindshare of Fidelis Elevate is 0.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response is 0.4%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
 

Featured Reviews

Mostafa Ameen - PeerSpot reviewer
Advanced threat detection capabilities with comprehensive incident response features providing robust cybersecurity for organizations
The initial aspect concerns two engines. The first one mentioned is available for searching behaviors directly. The second engine involves the Google Ade tool, which operates on the machine. The challenge arises when attempting to rectify protection rules, causing confusion. It would be beneficial to enhance Rigixs Query. I encounter difficulty removing certain entries in behavior or alerts; likewise, I am unable to add specific calls.
Eckart  Jensen - PeerSpot reviewer
Has an additional secure filter for banking-related pages and protects from viruses, malware, and attacks
The tool’s initial setup was straightforward. I would rate it a ten out of ten. However, for the setup of the mobile version, I would only rate it an eight out of ten. You will receive an invitation link and you get access as portal admin when you click on it.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Reporting is great, it is easy to do a quick search through 45 days of data for something of interest."
"There are many valuable features. The NDR gives very good network visibility, and the endpoint module has a great feature called "Live Connect" for remote connections. They also have "Tasks" that can be run on endpoints to gather specific information or retrieve logs."
"The initial setup is very straightforward. The deployment of the server doesn't take so long; about a day or two max."
"The solution's technical support is perfect, so I rate the technical support a ten out of ten"
"It has also improved our hunt ability with quick search tools, to zone in on malware or other anomalies. It is able to link items to incidents from other consoles, and works natively with the SIEM."
"After rack and stack, devices were up and running base configurations within two hours. As with any IPS, tuning is required to stop false positives. This is no different, but the ease of use of the interface allowed my team to start making adjustments within a few hours."
"Compared to similar solutions, it's quite scalable. You just need to add more storage to scale-up."
"What I like the most about this solution is the complexity. It covers a lot of areas, unlike other solutions."
"I use the solution to protect our infrastructure. The tool has special frames for banking. There is an additional secure filter for banking-related pages. It protects me from viruses, malware, and attacks."
"The only issue that we have today is with false positives. We have too many false positives with the solution."
"It offers good scalability."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The product is stable."
"WithSecure includes an encrypted drive that stores a key for accessing the encrypted data."
 

Cons

"Configuration, in terms of building the collector and communicating with endpoints, is complex."
"The interface bug needs to be squashed once and for all. This has been the predominant issue with an otherwise stellar product. It reboots itself unscheduled, about once a month, due to a memory buffer flaw in the interface."
"Fidelis Endpoint is an expensive product making it one of its shortcomings that needs improvement."
"I encounter difficulty removing certain entries in behavior or alerts; likewise, I am unable to add specific calls."
"We position the solution as an antivirus, but this part of the solution needs improvement. They need to generally enhance the features that they have, rather than adding anything new."
"There is room for improvement in email security. It's a security issue. If you're aiming for XDR, covering the entire threat landscape is crucial."
"The reports in the endpoint area of Elevate can be improved."
"The monthly reporting feature of WithSecure can be improved."
"The initial setup is very straightforward."
"Its automated functionality could be better."
"WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response is scalable. My company has 800-1000 customers."
"The website rules are too complicated."
"The tool’s mobile version needs to be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Fidelis Endpoint is an expensive product. My company makes yearly payments toward the licensing cost of the solution."
"It's quite expensive but we can customize it to reduce the price."
"It's somehow expensive. From one to ten, I would rate it a five. They need to improve the prices. It's very high."
"You license by the number of days of logs you need to maintain visibility for. Forty-five days is a good solid number for a company with around a 10k user base."
"WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response's licensing costs are yearly."
"The solution's price is moderate."
"I rate WithSecure a four out of ten because it's quite economical."
"I would rate the tool’s pricing a three out of ten. Its pricing is competitive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
8%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
Computer Software Company
22%
Comms Service Provider
19%
Healthcare Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Fidelis Elevate?
It ensures the stability of network behavior across various aspects of our network and offers responsive capabilities to address incidents promptly
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fidelis Elevate?
It's somehow expensive. From one to ten, I would rate it a five. They need to improve the prices. It's very high. We lose customers for price. It's not always worth it for them. Even for enterprise...
What needs improvement with Fidelis Elevate?
The initial aspect concerns two engines. The first one mentioned is available for searching behaviors directly. The second engine involves the Google Ade tool, which operates on the machine. The ch...
 

Also Known As

Fidelis Elevate Platform, Fidelis Enterprise, Fidelis Cloud, Fidelis Managed Detection and Response, Fidelis Deception, Fidelis Decryption, Fidelis Endpoint, Fidelis Network
F-Secure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response, F-Secure Rapid Detection and Response, F-Secure RDR
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

First Midwest Bank
Blackfin
Find out what your peers are saying about Fidelis Elevate vs. WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.