CrowdStrike Falcon Reviews

We use CrowdStrike Falcon as an XDR to replace our old antivirus solution.

We implemented CrowdStrike Falcon for better visibility into our environment and easy online access to the policies.

CrowdStrike Falcon's cybersecurity background allows for better integration with other tools.

The threat intelligence is the most valuable feature.

The support for different OS versions needs improvement because sometimes due to business conditions, updating our OS is impossible. For example, I have a production environment connected to the PNC that runs Windows XP on computers that CrowdStrike Falcon does not support.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for six years.

CrowdStrike Falcon is stable.

CrowdStrike Falcon has been able to scale to our needs with no issues.

The initial deployment was straightforward. The deployment took one day to complete. Ten people were involved in the deployment.

The implementation was completed in-house.

CrowdStrike Falcon's price is good. I am looking for other partners and compared to Microsoft Defender and other vendors the price is lower.

I would rate CrowdStrike Falcon a then out of ten.

Before purchasing CrowdStrike Falcon I suggest checking the policies, particularly those regarding internet connections, and conducting a proof of concept.

We use Falcon to protect around 500 endpoints.

The detection is very effective.

I have been using Falcon for two years.

I'm happy with CrowdStrike technical support. I rate CrowdStrike support 10 out of 10. 

Positive

CrowdStrike is very easy to set up. We upgrade it once annually. 

We pay an annual license. CrowdStrike costs a little more than its competitors. However, it's the best solution available, so we are fine with the price.

I rate CrowdStrike Falcon 10 out of 10.

We use CrowdStrike Falcon on all our devices, server, and workstations for security.

Cyberattack detection is very good. We use it for detecting different vulnerabilities, such as ransomware, virus, and malware. It is a good product today when compared to Symantec that we used previously.

The management of the solution could improve.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for approximately two years.

CrowdStrike Falcon is a new product and it is too soon to give a full report on the stability. We receive updates all time, and it has been more frequent than other solutions, such as Symantec. However, it has been somewhat stable and in a few months, I expect it to be even better.

The solution is in the cloud and this allows for the scalability to be very good.

We use this solution worldwide and we have approximately 80,000 people using it.

The technical support is good, they are available for our needs.

We previously used Symantec and we found the detection better with CrowdStrike Falcon.

The installation of the solution is complex, it is not easy.

There is an annual license required to use this solution. 

I rate CrowdStrike Falcon an eight out of ten.

I am using CrowdStrike Falcon for system security.

The most valuable feature of CrowdStrike Falcon is its accuracy. That's very important for me. False-positive are very bad for everyone. As we are a financial institution, it's even worse. I like Falcon because it's very accurate.

The integration is very good. We have had no problem integrating the on-premise version with the cloud. We have an environment on-premise and an environment in the cloud. The integration with CrowdStrike is really very easy.

CrowdStrike Falcon could improve if it became an XDR. When we look only to an end-point, we lost the context of the environment. I know it's another line of design of the product. However, if CrowdStrike becomes an XDR, it could be very good.

I have used CrowdStrike Falcon within the last 12 months.

CrowdStrike Falcon is very stable.

The scalability of CrowdStrike Falcon is very good.

We have approximately 700 users are using this solution in my organization. We plan to increase the usage of this solution. We are evaluating various aspects of the environment to see how it can extend our protection.

I have not contacted support. However, I do not have any bad reports about their performance.

I have not done the implementation myself. However, our technicians that did it had no problem, the process is straightforward.

My technicians did the implementation of CrowdStrike Falcon.

CrowdStrike Falcon is a very sophisticated solution. We are evaluating it further and more favorable results will come only with deeper study and evaluation.

I have never had any kind of problem with the solution.

I rate CrowdStrike Falcon a nine out of ten.

We use CrowdStrike Falcon to secure the endpoints and servers that we have on-premise.

The detection is very reliable. Also, OverWatch is a great feature.

The reporting part is basic. It's not that intuitive and you cannot go further backward in terms of historical information.

The Integration with tools, SOC tools, could be better. 

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for two years, more or less.

The stability is good, it's compatible with most of our platform. The agent upgrade could be better, but it's more or less aligned with the platforms. We also use Mac OS on some endpoints. Mac is not always the reflection of the agent that is the latest.

We haven't experienced any issues relating to scalability.

Their customer support is good. I've always gotten the answers that I needed timely and with the content I needed.

The initial setup was a bit complex, but that was due to our environment. In the beginning, we used the outdated VDI infrastructure of Citrix, but we have since evolved along the way and now it's straightforward; however, in the beginning, it was a bit difficult to get the CDI working properly, deploying the agents. 

Deployment time varies, but for most endpoints, it only takes a few minutes.

The price is too high. When we are reaching a new renewal, management always asks what's going on in the market.

For the purpose of starting, yes, it's a very good solution, but you need to take two things into consideration: proper alignment with the infrastructure and the price. The price negatively affects the adoption of this solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight — because of the price and reporting.

Our primary use case is as an endpoint protection service. 

We get a notification when there are some malicious activities on our PC whenever we have a detection. The other administrator and I can log in to check the exact details of what happened, what was running, and what caused the detection. We know exactly what was happening on the end user's PC and we can tell if it's something that we actually need or something that's malicious.

When something is detected you can log into the GUI and you can get very specific details about what happened. It's very helpful for investigating incidents and this sort of thing.

The GUI can use improvement, it's cloud-based so sometimes the interface can be a bit slow. The interface could use a little bit more speed. 

When I change the policies for some users, I would like to have an option to apply that policy immediately. Right now, I have to wait for the users to connect to the cloud to take the new policy. I would like for them to develop the ability to have an option to apply the post the policy immediately.

It's very stable, we haven't had any issues so far.

We haven't had any issues when it comes to scalability. We have thirty to forty users.

We haven't had to use their technical support. 

The initial setup was very straightforward. You just download the agent and install it; that's it. The deployment took two to three hours. We have two admins. One of us logs in and sees what happened.

I would advise someone considering this solution to just read the documentation. You should start with the documentation, it's very clear and very simple. Anything you need is in the documentation.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

Primary use is for endpoint investigations.

It allows us to determine root cause, do the analysis, a lot quicker.

Visibility into the endpoint rate. Understanding what processes are running on the system, what registry keys have been enabled. Pretty much understanding the whole frantic side of the endpoint.

It would be nice if we could extrapolate indicators of compromise and write them within sandboxes.

It's fairly stable. We haven't been having too many issues with that.

It scales quite well because it's cloud-based and subscription-based. It can scale pretty quickly.

I would say technical support is fairly good. They understand the technology quite well so they are able to support us a lot better.

The most important criteria when selecting a vendor come down to the capability of the technology, the cost, the support, how it fits into our overall architecture strategy, and the stability of the company. For instance, if it's a small company and they go under, you might as well have not invested in it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10 because it has all the features that we need. It's within our budget, and it fits into our overall architecture strategy. There are a few features that could be added, as mentioned.

I would recommend this technology.

We primarily use CrowdStrike Falcon for malware detection, endpoints, and application behavior detection. The company has different teams, but our team handles the Windows and Mac hosts.

Overall, what I found most valuable in CrowdStrike Falcon is its good mechanism. It also has a good reporting feature. CrowdStrike Falcon is an invaluable tool because, through it, you can take quick action, for example, when an OS is missing specific patches.

Dashboard creation is one of the areas for improvement in CrowdStrike Falcon. Sometimes, management asks for a custom dashboard, so my team has to collect data from CrowdStrike Falcon, integrate that in Splunk, then create the dashboard in Splunk. The Splunk dashboard is more elaborate, so the CrowdStrike Falcon dashboard needs improvement.

Another area for improvement in the tool is the malware detection report, as it needs to be more detailed and include some graphics so that if you want to present that data in a nutshell, it's easier to do. For example, the report should consist of some graphical representation that shows a month's worth of data.

In terms of an additional feature I'd like CrowdStrike Falcon to have, it's the device posture assessment feature that detects the device posture within the network. Whichever device connects to the corporate network, my company should be able to analyze the device posture. Then there should be communication with the network, which means that as soon as a device connects, CrowdStrike Falcon can assess the device posture, detect its corporate asset, and decide whether it should be allowed on the network.

I've been using CrowdStrike Falcon since January or February, so it's been eleven months, but my company used it even before I joined the organization.

Overall, CrowdStrike Falcon is a stable product. My company is satisfied with its stability.

Per my experience, CrowdStrike Falcon is scalable.

The CrowdStrike Falcon technical support is good because it's responsive, and the team reverts to you within a reasonable timeframe and in an excellent manner, which is essential for support. However, my team didn't have many cases because CrowdStrike Falcon doesn't require much support.

My company also took product training and implemented the learnings within the environment. CrowdStrike Falcon is effective and gives the required throughput and output, so in the last ten or eleven months, support cases have been very low, but whenever an issue is raised, the level of support has been excellent.

The company previously used Kaspersky, but CrowdStrike Falcon was far better. I heard that there was some attack, and Kaspersky couldn't handle that. CrowdStrike Falcon, on the other hand, offers excellent protection even from multiple malware attacks, and it has a good application behavior analysis feature.

My company did extensive penetration testing on CrowdStrike Falcon, which had good or far better results than Kaspersky. The company had a bad experience with Kaspersky.

The initial setup for CrowdStrike Falcon is moderate in terms of difficulty, so it's not very easy, but it's not complex as well.

How long the setup takes depends on how you want to deploy CrowdStrike Falcon, but at the moment, it doesn't take much time for my company. It's quicker, but any company implementing CrowdStrike Falcon for the first time may need some good training or some hands-on experience. Otherwise, compared to other products, I would say CrowdStrike Falcon is better, implementation-wise.

As I'm part of the technical team, not the budgeting team, I don't have information on CrowdStrike Falcon pricing.

My company uses multiple products related to cybersecurity, for example, Netskope. For endpoint security, my company uses Microsoft Defender ATP and Endgame. My company is also working with CrowdStrike Falcon. For vulnerability management, my company uses Qualys, in particular for the AWS environment.

I don't remember the exact version of CrowdStrike Falcon I'm using, but I know that the tool is on Windows, Mac, and some AWS environments within the company.

Within the company, the total number of endpoints is around seven hundred. Two admins handle the endpoints for CrowdStrike Falcon.

My advice for anyone looking to implement CrowdStrike Falcon is to go for it, especially if you want to add value to your cybersecurity, specifically endpoint protection and application behavior analysis. CrowdStrike Falcon has reliable results, so I prefer it over other tools.

My rating for CrowdStrike Falcon is nine out of ten.

My company is a customer, and not a partner of CrowdStrike Falcon.