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

Lookout 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

Lookout
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
29th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (51st), Mobile Threat Defense (3rd)
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 Lookout is 1.1%, up from 1.0% 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 (%)
Lookout1.1%
MetaDefender1.5%
Other97.4%
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
 

Featured Reviews

DB
IT Manager at NHS Trust
Enhanced mobile security with visibility into app and website usage, but installation challenges remain
We use Lookout for mobile devices, such as phones It has reduced our risk around mobile devices. I like the security features and being able to see what apps and websites people are using. There is nothing we have come across that we've desired. We have been using Lookout for one year. The…
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

"We have not had any issues with bugs or breakdowns."
"The protection offered by the product is the most valuable feature. It detects vulnerabilities or traps on our users' phones and then prompts them to clean up their devices. Tools we used previously would only discover, which required us to gather information on the backend, so Lookout is a welcome upgrade."
"The most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"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

"We just submitted an enhancement request reflecting the main area we want to see improvement in; the APIs. Currently, we're able to build dashboards, but it's somewhat backward because we use our MDM API to create them. Lookout should provide API to customers so we can query our data and use it in our cloud, and this is the only outstanding area for improvement with the product right now."
"The initial setup requires a little bit of experience with configuration."
"From the analysis that we've done, they do seem to be maybe a step behind in trying to enter the market with a new solution. But when they do pick up, they do come out with some good products."
"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Lookout is definitely on the lower end when it comes to price point and that seems to be the only differentiator. The technology is in place in this space and it's really about who is coming in at the better price point now."
"The pricing is fair; it's comparable to our previous solution, and we carried out multiple POCs and POVs (proof of value). The product is worth the money we pay for it."
"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.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Healthcare Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Large Enterprise5
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Lookout?
The pricing is a little expensive. We are currently looking at comparisons with other solutions, including Umbrella.
What needs improvement with Lookout?
There is nothing we have come across that we've desired.
What is your primary use case for Lookout?
We use Lookout for mobile devices, such as phones.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

CipherCloud
OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, Recorded Future, VirusTotal and others in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP). Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.