We performed a comparison between Intercept X Endpoint and Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Impressive detection capabilities"
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"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."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"It is one of the best in terms of technicality."
"All of the features are very important for anyone who is supporting a large number of computers."
"The deployment is quick. It just depends on the environment and what you may be replacing."
"Sophos Intercept X has a host of valuable features, including its anti-malware feature, which we considered key."
"The Managed Detection and Response service provided by Intercept X Endpoint is highly valuable. With a team of 600-700 individuals monitoring systems, they swiftly respond to attacks, either informing us to isolate or directly removing threats. This full MDR service is especially recommended for sectors like finance, where data security is critical. The deep learning technology within Intercept X Endpoint enhances our security posture by analyzing behaviors and algorithms to differentiate between legitimate users and threats, effectively preventing attacks on our network infrastructure."
"It's quite simple to use and user friendly."
"The pricing is fair. It's not too costly for our small organization."
"It is an intelligent tool."
"The pricing is good."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
"IPS and the user interface are good features."
"The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable feature is that the same agent can act as the endpoint detection and response agent."
"I've mainly found the antivirus and antispyware features valuable. The documentation is okay as well."
"Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is stable."
"The solution does all that we expect it to do."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"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"
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"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."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"It would be beneficial if you could expand support for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 without charging an additional fee."
"In terms of the site-to-site VPN elements, they tend to concentrate. It's quite simple when there are Meraki devices at both ends of the VPN but if there is another user at one end, on another device, it can be a bit tricky. So they could really simplify that process a bit."
"Features that should be improved in the upgrade involve the excessive consumption of the the solution's processor, RAM and resources."
"We had some initial problems with our deployment, and they were more around uninstalling Sophos Basic and installing Sophos Intercept X. We had some challenges with some of the uninstallation scripts. They can improve the deployment of Sophos Intercept X when there is already an existing Sophos version. They can also provide more information in the form of best practices and lessons learned from previous findings. A knowledge base with this type of information would be helpful."
"Needs more flexible reporting, particularly for medium to large size companies."
"The deployment part needs to be improved."
"When we load Intercept X, it puts a load on the device. When it is scanning, it slows down the device. A system with basic specifications completely slows down till the scan is complete. They should improve this part."
"The solution is heavy in the usage of resources, you can notice the performance decrease. This should prove in the future."
"It would be good if it can anticipate zero-day attacks. I don't know how it can be done and if it is even a feature of this product."
"The interface is very complicated."
"They need to improve their cloud presence."
"It would be nice to see more granular timeline analysis."
"That's why I wouldn't recommend it for other systems. It works only with SAP clients. That's why I'm giving it a six. It would get higher if it worked on all networks without the help of SAP."
"In the future, it would be nice to have playbooks in the tool, to allow for some of the common activities to be automated. For example, some of the scannings of the malware can be too manual for a specific device. Additionally, a vulnerability manager would be beneficial."
"It is not possible to buy it from the company itself, or resellers in other countries. If it is available, I see that it is offered as part of a larger service. For me, this was not suitable."
"The solution needs to provide better integration."
More Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 4th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 101 reviews while Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is ranked 24th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 28 reviews. Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4, while Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response writes "A highly stable and affordable solution for detecting and preventing security threats". Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Seqrite Endpoint Security, whereas Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trend Vision One, Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert, Bitdefender GravityZone EDR and Elastic Security. See our Intercept X Endpoint vs. Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response report.
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.