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

MetaDefender vs Red Canary 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

MetaDefender
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
37th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (37th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (38th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (19th)
Red Canary
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
25th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (39th), Managed Detection and Response (MDR) (11th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of MetaDefender is 0.9%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Canary is 1.2%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Red Canary1.2%
MetaDefender0.9%
Other97.9%
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
SB
SOC Analyst at Valorant
Monitors traffic effectively and assists in compliance decision-making for quick response
Red Canary detects threats and attack patterns, allowing us to assess any significant damage caused to the banking environment, particularly if protected data has been damaged or corrupted. It is valuable for security teams in banking industries that need to make informed decisions quickly. Red Canary solutions are useful for compliance with standards like FFIEC and PCI and are employed in medical operations for HIPAA compliance.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its automation part."
"The valuable features of this solution are it integrates well with different EDR software, such CrowdStrike, and Carbon Black, and the information it provides is helpful."
"I recommended Red Canary to my friends who work in other organizations."
"The solution works well for what we use it for and the support and protection are good."
"The near real-time review translates into near real-time action. So, in addition to alerting, Red Canary MDR has response playbooks built out."
 

Cons

"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."
"Red Canary's pricing spectrum may not be ideal for smaller financial institutions."
"The most valuable feature of Red Canary MDR is the overall threat protection it provides."
"I would like there to be an on-premise version of this solution for our data centers because of the proliferation of online threats."
"The price could always be better."
"In general, the solution currently fails to provide a summary to its users."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"The solution could vary in price depending on how many endpoints a company has."
"I have not compared Red Canary to other solutions to know if the price is high or low. However, I have found the price of this solution fair and reasonable, it cost approximately $100 per year, per device. If they could provide the solution for $50 per year, per device, it would be better."
"Red Canary MDR I use is an open-source tool."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Healthcare Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Red Canary MDR?
Red Canary's pricing spectrum may not be ideal for smaller financial institutions.
What is your primary use case for Red Canary MDR?
We use Red Canary ( /products/red-canary-reviews ) to monitor incoming and outgoing traffic. For example, when we receive an alert that data from our internal IP address to an external IP address h...
 

Also Known As

OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
Red Canary Managed Detection and Response (MDR)
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
DuPont, Quanta Services, Microchip Technology, Hopkins Public Schools, Henny Penny, Schumacher Homes
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft, Proofpoint and others in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP). Updated: December 2025.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.