CrowdStrike Falcon Reviews

I'm currently working as a cybersecurity specialist at the Arab Open University. We are trying to create centralized station input. We have nine branches in the Middle East, so we need a cloud-based solution. Our control center is in Kuwait but all nine of our branches use CrowdStrike Falcon. Our team is located in Kuwait, which is where we handle and mitigate threats from.

The most valuable CrowdStrike Falcon feature is that the user is blocked from the network completely. I think that this is a good solution. We can do a threat analysis of any machine at any time, but that threat analysis is very limited. 

There could be more flexibility in terms of policy defining and certain features, like USB controls, should come standard with the license. Many CrowdStrike Falcon competitors are cheaper and offer a slew of features in the standard license.

CrowdStrike Falcon is not so flexible. We need a specific admin control or maybe supervised controls to change or modify the settings.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for almost a year now. 

CrowdStrike Falcon is stable.

CrowdStrike Falcon's scalability is good. We have thousands of students using this solution. 

CrowdStrike Falcon's technical support is good. 

Positive

Yes, we previously used Kaspersky.

I think CrowdStrike Falcon is a straightforward solution. It is not very complex. It's just plug and play.

We deployed in-house, with our own team. We just borrowed the set up files and deployed on all the stations. Only two persons at each branch worked on deployment, so we used certain software to deploy the files on the network. Deployment took us nearly a month. 

I'm not sure how much we are paying for CrowdStrike Falcon, but we have a yearly subscription. 

We use CrowdStrike Falcon for endpoint protection.

CrowdStrike Falcon has helped our organization because it is transparent to the user base.

CrowdStrike Falcon's most valuable feature is the fact that it's not getting in the way of our workforce and their workflow.

The overall cost of CrowdStrike Falcon could be reduced.

I have used CrowdStrike Falcon within the last 12 months.

CrowdStrike Falcon is stable.

The scalability of CrowdStrike Falcon is very high. It is scaled across all of our systems without any problem.

We have approximately 1,000 people using this solution across the USA. We have plans to continue our user base and any additional endpoints will have CrowdStrike Falcon on them.

I rate the technical support from CrowdStrike Falcon a five out of five.

We previously used another solution and we switched to CrowdStrike Falcon because it was superior.

The initial setup of CrowdStrike Falcon is straightforward.

I have not seen a return on investment from using CrowdStrike Falcon, but others in my company have. 

The price of CrowdStrike Falcon is expensive.

My advice to others is that CrowdStrike Falcon is certainly a workable solution. It does what it needs to do. Whenever I say that our company is using CrowdStrike Falcon people's impressions is that it is an expensive solution."

I rate CrowdStrike Falcon a ten out of ten.

It is used for stopping data breaches. 

It is totally on the cloud. It cannot be deployed on-prem. They don't have any on-prem options.

It is very useful for endpoint protection and stopping data breaches. That's its real strength.

I like the Overwatch feature the most. 

Its performance is brilliant. It is a good, lightweight agent. I've seen it do really good things on the endpoints, and there is no problem with its performance.

On the firewall management side, there should be more granularity. There should also be more granularity for device control. Everything else is brilliant.

I have been using this solution for four years.

It is stable.

It is the most scalable solution among all solutions that I've seen so far. Because it's cloud-based, it's really quick to roll out to 1,000, 10,000, or 100,000 endpoints. You can scale it depending on how many endpoints you've got. It is a good solution.

We have about 10 customers who use this solution.

My experience has been good so far.

Its installation is quick and easy. I wouldn't change anything there. The duration depends on the number of endpoints to which you want to push it, but it is fast. I've seen them roll thousands in a matter of hours.

The number of people required for its deployment and maintenance depends on the package you take, but generally, it has a much lower requirement than any other endpoint protection solution.

My advice is to go with a partner that has got experience. I would also advise seriously considering the Overwatch feature. 

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

CrowdStrike Falcon is working on our production servers.

CrowdStrike Falcon is a very light solution. It does not use too much processor or RAM.

In the future release of CrowdStrike Falcon, they should add a sandbox feature.

I have used CrowdStrike Falcon within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable.

CrowdStrike Falcon is scalable. We have approximately 400 servers using this solution.

We have plans to increase the usage of this solution in one or two years.

We used technical support for the implementation of the solution and it was a good experience. They know the products well and they were able to give us all the answers to the questions that we had.

The setup is really easy. The full deployment took two months.

For the deployment of the solution, we used a three-person team and for the maintenance, we use the whole infrastructure team of four people.

The price of CrowdStrike Falcon could be better. It is very expensive, we pay approximately $900 per month for the licenses. There are not any additional fees.

Before choosing CrowdStrike Falcon we evaluated Sophos and Microsoft solutions.

The product is really good, but there is a lot of additional features that you need to have for it to be a complete solution. Be sure that your budget is enough to acquire the complete solution that you need.

I rate CrowdStrike Falcon a ten out of ten.

Our primary use for CrowdStrike is as an EDR system. We are protecting more then 9.000 devices.

I like the detection rates of mobile threats.

The policies allow us to define the level of protection.

The dashboards are good, as well as user management.

The management reporting functionality needs to be improved.

We would like to see more features for vulnerability management included.

We have been using CrowdStrike Falcon since one year.

This is a stable product.

We haven't had any problems with scalability and it expands with the company's needs.

We have 20,000 users and about 20 of them are administrators.

We have been in touch with technical support for a few issues. They are quite good and the response is fast.

We were using Cylance prior to CrowdStrike, and these two products overlapped for a time. We also use an on-premises solution called F-Secure.

CrowdStrike has a much lower rate of false positives than Cylance and the dashboard makes it easier to use.

The initial setup is very simple. It took two months to deploy for 20,000 clients.

Our in-house team handled the implementation and deployment. No maintenance is required.

The pricing is good and there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees. It is similar to that of Cylance and our on-premises solution.

This is a product that I absolutely recommend.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We have various use cases. We are protecting servers and endpoints that are utilizing this product to focus on advanced, persistent threats, with the goal of reducing the overhead on the endpoint for early detection.

Right now, we have not put enforcement, and we're moving to the next level of detection.

Using this solution has reduced my need for imaging. We can mitigate the issue and address it immediately, for people both on and off of the network.

The most valuable feature is that we don't need to re-image machines as much as we had to.

They need to strengthen the forensic capabilities of this product, for e-discovery.

We started testing and deploying CrowdStrike Falcon about a year and a half ago, in the early part of 2019.

In terms of stability, it's a great tool.

At this time, we have between 5,000 and 6,000 endpoints.

We have been in touch with CrowdStrike technical support and they have been very supportive.

Prior to CrowdSrike, we used a signature-based solution from Symantec.

The initial setup was very straightforward and very easy. We've been bringing stuff into the SWOT platform and getting that data. It has been pretty good.

The implementation was done in-house. We had, in part, help from a strategic partner, EY.

CrowdStrike is what we did for the time and for the moment. It is number two when you look at the magic quadrant, and we have implemented that for the time being. When we selected it, that was right for us to get away from a Symantec signature-based environment for endpoint detection response.

We have moved over to CrowdStrike for now. When you look at the quadrant, the number one is Microsoft. With Defender built into the operating system, there is less overhead on the endpoint. We will eventually, most likely, migrate to that.

I have experience with Cylance, as well. They gave that the advanced persistent threat leader title, at one point in the market. I implemented that for one client and now, being in this CISO role, I went with CrowdStrike over Cyberreason and Cylance/Blackberry. The main reason for CrowdStrike is the Falcon technologies and what they do with their strategy.

We're moving to Office 365, and it will make sense for me to adopt Microsoft Defender because it's integrated into the platform. One of the differences between Defender versus CrowdStrike or any other of them is that they have to sit outside. Microsoft Defender can go deep down into the kernel, and that's a good thing for the endpoint. You can do a lot and detect a lot, which makes it far safer against advanced persistent threats.

Overall, this product has been pretty good and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for threat protection and endpoint security.

Recently, we added on CrowdStrike OverWatch and Insightsoftware for better reporting. OverWatch monitors East-West issues that CrowdStrike Protect doesn't see. New next-generation endpoint security doesn't scan your PC. It doesn't scan files nightly. People have to get past that, it's so old school. 

I have 50 end-users, one hundred endpoints, and workers of all types, both in-house and remote workers.

With the addition of Overwatch and the Insight tool, the reporting has gotten better and I've gained some quality insight that helps me remedy compliance issues and maintain security posture; however, in a year and a half, we haven't had an actual positive detection across a hundred endpoints. The reason for that is mostly due to our employee training and the way that our complete security stack is configured. I hope that the way that I've got it configured right now is the sole reason that we literally aren't letting things in.

If the solution sees some issues, it reports them. Even though they're false positives, in a different scenario, what it's reporting could be a threat. Usually, they're just executables that were downloaded and installed by me. That's to be fully expected and maybe they came from a vendor, but it wasn't signed. 

It's given me a level of confidence that my network is secure — the fact that it's not finding anything; however, I am not experiencing the issues that competitors are saying I should be experiencing. I literally have to test it manually to know it's working.

Falcon Protect looks at processes and issues in real-time.

CrowdStrike Falcon by itself does not supply in-depth reporting. 

Falcon Protect does what it does. It's endpoint security — nothing more, nothing less. 

What it does, It does well. However, if you need more information on what it found and how it got there (including board reporting and compliance reporting), that's not there. Some of the other solutions that are available give you that, right out of the box.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for the past year and a half.

We haven't experienced any issues regarding the stability of CrowdStrike Falcon.

CrowdStrike Falcon is scalable. I've only got one hundred endpoints and I know companies that are hundreds of times bigger who use it.

Trying to get somebody on the phone might not always be the easiest thing, but they usually respond in a fairly timely manner. I haven't had any issues where I've needed them to immediately fix things.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give their customer support a rating of nine.

We had a Vipre solution, but it was an On-Prem solution. The server was aging out and the software was up for renewal. It wasn't working well with our remote workers; they're not literally connected to my network so updating them was always a pain-point without a cloud-based solution.

We were going to transition to "cloud" and Vipre just wasn't really up to the level of CrowdStrike at the time.

The deployment literally took about 15 minutes across the wide area network. Regarding configuration, we took a look at it with their tech support and Implementation team. There's literally maybe a dozen settings and we basically maxed them out.

The price of CrowdStrike Falcon is a little high, but it can be negotiated.

If you're thinking about implementing this solution, I would suggest getting Overwatch and Insight along with it. Also, don't be afraid to try and negotiate for a better price.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.

The reporting is part of the Overwatch and Insight combination. It's doing what we want it to do and it's not causing a lot of overhead. Like I said earlier, maybe we're an anomaly. We don't have a lot of issues on our network.

I like that it's cloud-based instead of on-premise.

I miss a feature for the USB control that they have as an add-on. I haven't gotten to the point where I want to pay for it, but the features that I miss are available.

The biggest issue with Falcon as a standalone product is it doesn't have very much reporting.
Out of the box, the only weakness is the level of reporting.

All the analytics and the telemetry are there, it's just a matter of getting to it. Other vendors offer some of that stuff right out of the box.

CrowdStrike Falcon has been very low maintenance. There are features on it that I haven't touched yet. I've got a SIEM that I haven't really had time to explore fully. I have a patch management system that does what it does. I have a firewall and IDS that do what they do, and I have an endpoint security system that does what it does.

MSPs keep asking how one person can keep up to the different solutions and alerting, if you don't have any problems, then it's pretty easy to keep up. Everything does what it does.  I don't experience any of the issues that apparently a lot of people have on their network. How can I tell you what to improve if it's doing what it's supposed to do? 

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon since June of 2019. 

The stability is good; we haven't experienced any glitches or bugs.

We're a small company so the scalability is fine for us.

I don't have to talk to their technical support often. When I need help, I contact them by email.  Sometimes it takes a little while to get through to them, but otherwise, when they respond the issue is resolved. Not a real concern. 

We had Vipre business on-premise, the product was being discontinued and I wanted to move away from an on-premise solution.  At the time Vipre did not seem to be quite as mature as other options.  I understand that they have improved quite a bit since I looked at them last.

The initial setup was straightforward. Initial agent deployment took roughly 15 minutes.  SIEM integration required some coordination between vendors, but was relatively uneventful when support teams were involved.

Licensing cost is negotiable. There are no additional costs.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. I'm sure there's always something that can be improved.

We evaluated Vipre, Carbon Black, and a few others.

There are half a dozen players out there that are the best of the breed. Pick one.

When it came to CrowdStrike versus Carbon Black, configuration and setup were deciding, driving factors. CrowdStrike was much easier to configure, but overall, is it better or worse? I can't make that judgment call.

All I know is what I've been told by other vendors that are trying to get my business. They tell me about issues that I've never encountered with the products that I have. In summary, take what a vendor says about another vendor's product with a grain of salt.