We performed a comparison between ESET Inspect and N-able EDR based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike and others in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)."The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"This is stable and scalable."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The rules are the best and most useful features."
"Scalability-wise, it is a very good solution."
"ESET Enterprise Inspector's most valuable feature is EDR."
"I find the multilayered endpoint security the most valuable feature."
"Rules are the most valuable feature of ESET Inspect. They are created through XML language, and they track and filter events from endpoints. If the event matches the rule, the rule is triggered. Exceptions are the second most valuable feature because it gives you the power to filter false positives in large numbers. The third most valuable feature is the Learning mode that facilitates making exceptions for known processes with a good reputation."
"ESET Enterprise Inspector's greatest asset lies in its user-friendly interface, which allows for easy navigation and thorough analysis of incidents."
"The most valuable features are the rollback feature, it's important for us. The AI models and are good."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The solution is not stable."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The product is complex to configure, and there are too many errors that are not errors, making it an area that can be considered for improvement."
"The solution could improve the consumption of resources. The RAM and CPU usage increases during usage which can cause issues. We have three separate services and it would be beneficial if all were executed from one agent limiting the over usage of system resources."
"The platform's price could be better."
"It may be difficult for a first-time customer to understand all of the functions that are available to him."
"It is not a stable product. We were disappointed in the stability of this product in comparison to McAffee."
"Every vendor is working on making the job of SOC analysts easier, with fewer false positives and more precise detections. ESET uses LiveGrid technology that provides feedback on the reputation of files and operations. It's hard to eliminate all of the false positives, but hopefully, we'll see some improvement with the advances in AI."
"We have a lot of false positives we see in the dashboard. I think this is the only problem we are facing."
Earn 20 points
ESET Inspect is ranked 53rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 6 reviews while N-able EDR is ranked 57th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR). ESET Inspect is rated 7.6, while N-able EDR is rated 0.0. The top reviewer of ESET Inspect writes "A product with an easy setup phase that helps manage attacks and vulnerabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of N-able EDR writes "Stable, effective rollback feature, and useful AI models". ESET Inspect is most compared with HP Wolf Security, CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Datto Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Bitdefender GravityZone EDR, whereas N-able EDR is most compared with SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint, Cisco Secure Endpoint and Elastic Security.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.