We performed a comparison between CrowdStrike Falcon and Cynet based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: CrowdStrike Falcon stands out for its minimal impact on system performance, optimal resource utilization, and precise detection of threats. Cynet offers strong ransomware protection and an intuitive interface. CrowdStrike Falcon could benefit from adding a sandbox feature and more detailed firewall management options. Cynet needs to expand device support and add customization options. Users suggest improving network monitoring and strengthening integration with other tools.
Service and Support: CrowdStrike Falcon's customer service has been commended for its promptness and assistance. Cynet's customer service is consistently lauded for its excellence. They have a dedicated support team that is available round the clock, and they also have a contingency plan for urgent incidents.
Ease of Deployment: CrowdStrike Falcon's setup is considered to be simple and efficient, with varying deployment times ranging from a few days to a month. While there may be some challenges during installation, they are generally manageable. Cynet’s setup is highly efficient, with the ability to configure thousands of devices quickly.
Pricing: Some users find CrowdStrike Falcon costly and think the price should be lowered to make it more competitive. Customers generally view Cynet's pricing and licensing experience as affordable and a good value for its features.
ROI: CrowdStrike Falcon offers cost savings by decreasing the required number of engineers and eliminating the necessity for onsite servers. Cynet yields an excellent ROI by preventing cyberattacks and safeguarding sensitive data.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer CrowdStrike Falcon because it efficiently uses system resources and offers a comprehensive analysis of endpoint devices. Users appreciate its accuracy, behavior analysis, and detection capabilities. CrowdStrike Falcon offers more features such as ransomware protection and added antivirus defense.
"We also use Microsoft Sentinel, Defender for Cloud, Defender for Identity, and Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps. They are all integrated and it was very easy to integrate them. In my experience with the integrations, it was just a click of a button and things were integrated. It's just a button."
"The product is very easy to use."
"The most valuable features are spam filtering, attachment filtering, and antivirus protection."
"Its most significant advantage lies in its affordability."
"Another noteworthy feature that I find appealing in Microsoft Defender is the credit-backed simulation. This feature enables organizations to train their users on effectively responding to phishing emails through a simulated training environment."
"The advantage of Microsoft Defender XDR has over other XDRs in the market is that it's easy to use. You can quickly differentiate between alerts, incidents, devices, software, etc. It's easier to investigate an incident, and you have so many options. You can automate investigations and use playbooks. There's also the live response session, which is something you can't find in any other XDR."
"In Microsoft 365 vendor products, monitoring and connectivity across all Microsoft and third-party connectors enable viewing of all activity within those environments."
"Microsoft 365 Defender is a stable solution."
"As long as the machine is connected to the Internet, and CrowdStrike is running, then it will be on and we will have visibility; no VPNing in or making some type of network connection. CrowdStrike always there and running in the background; for us, that is big. We wanted something that could give us data as long as the machines connected to the Internet and be almost invisible to the employees."
"It has an extremely low footprint, so it has got minimum impact on the user end points in terms of CPU and memory usage."
"The most valuable features of Crowdstrike Falcon XDR are Spotlight and Discovery, they are helpful. Additionally, the console is user-friendly, with fewer false positives than other solutions."
"The malware protection is the most valuable feature of CrowdStrike Falcon."
"From what we have seen, it is very scalable. We have recently acquired a company where someone had a ransomware attack when we joined networks. Within the course of just a few days, we were able to easily get CrowdStrike rolled out to about 300 machines. That also included the removal of that company's legacy anti-malware tool."
"It seems to do a pretty good job of protecting the host. It offers good insights that it gives you when it has a detection. It's pretty incredible."
"The most valuable feature of CrowdStrike Falcon is crowdsourcing intelligence."
"The ability to execute real-time response, or, that you can connect to the agent and see exactly what processes are operating, is the most important feature of this solution."
"We are using almost all of the features and we find it quite good overall."
"We are protecting all our workstations."
"Cynet's most valuable features are laptop and server performance, internal network monitoring, and external firewall lock management."
"The most valuable feature is the monitored support behind it."
"The initial setup is simple and user-friendly."
"It provides good protection from ransomware and malware attacks. It is very good as compared to other products. If any threat is there, their support is very good. They immediately respond to the users and do a follow-up. They call us and also provide email support."
"Cynet is unique in that it has almost everything included and it was built up from the ground, instead of a bundle of purchased and composed modules. It gives you easier very good visibility than Sentinel One as well as a lower maintenance burden."
"It's transparent, so it's not something where every user has to press a button to download or do the thing. It is centralized, in fact. Personally, I use Malwarebytes and other tools, which are fine for home use. Cynet is also relatively silent in terms of operation, except when it's required to act."
"Sometimes, configurations take much longer than expected."
"The Defender agent itself is more compatible with Windows 10 and Windows 11. Other than these two lines, there are so many compatibility issues. Security is not only about Microsoft. The core technical aspects of it are quite good, but it would be good if they can better support non-Microsoft solutions in terms of putting the agents directly into VMware and other virtualization solutions. There should be more emphasis on RHEL and other operating systems that we use, other than Windows, in the server category."
"The abundance of sub-dashboards and sub-areas within the main dashboard can be confusing, even if it all technically makes sense."
"The interface could be improved. For example, if you want to do a phishing simulation for your employees, it can take a while to figure out what to do. The interface is a bit messy and could be updated. It isn't too bad, but doing some things can be a long process."
"Correctly updated records are the most significant area for improvement. There have been times when we were notified of a required fix; we would carry out the fix and confirm it but still get the same notification a week later. This seems to be a delay in records being updated and leads to false reporting, which is something that needs to be fixed."
"From an integration standpoint, it is always improving overall. With Security Copilot coming out, as partners, we are waiting for the GDAP support so that we can actually see Security Copilot on behalf of customers if they subscribe to it."
"There should be better information for experts on features in the solution. What I see when reading about features in Microsoft 365 Defender is that it is always general information. If Microsoft could go deeper into details for the experts about how to use the tools, usage of it would be more familiar and it would be easier to use."
"When discussing the secure score, which includes overviews and recommended actions, some of these recommended actions are not applicable to us, particularly those related to Microsoft Internet Explorer, which we do not use in any of our environments."
"I would like them to improve the correlation of data in the search algorithms. When we run an investigation, malware, phishing, etc., I want to look at multiple endpoints at once to correlate that data to see the likenesses, e.g., how are they not alike or what systems and processes are running across those systems? I don't want to have to run the same search in their Spotlight module five, 10, 15, or 100 times to get 100 different results, copy that data out, and then correlate it on my own. In a very simple way, I want to be able to load up a comma-delimited list giving me the spotlight data on these X amount of hosts, letting me search for it quickly. We have had to go back to CrowdStrike, and say, "Our search are taking far too long for even one host." They did bump up the cores and that did improve performance, but it is still kind of slow to get that Spotlight data. That is probably our biggest pain point. I think that needs some help. I understand this kind of information access is probably not the easiest thing to do. It is probably a big ask depending on how their back-end is setup."
"Some of Falcon's features are a bit pricey."
"It does take more time to scan than other solutions."
"Falcon could include more integrative features."
"The biggest issue with Falcon as a standalone product is it doesn't have very much reporting."
"In the six months that I have been using CrowdStrike, it has not been able to detect anything."
"The pricing is a bit too high."
"They respond quickly on the weekdays, but the weekend response times are slower."
"Linux servers are not supported."
"They have some things in the pipeline, we understand, and they're going to be able to support Android and all these other devices soon. The key is the devices - which is an aspect that is lacking right now. Every company has that problem, not just Cynet."
"Cynet could improve when a reverse proxy is being used to connect to the servers. There could be an easier configuration because it is not plug-and-play."
"Increased application for SOAR abilities across interconnected devices would be a welcome improvement."
"I think the technical support could be better."
"The command line interface could be improved."
"I'd like to see more data loss prevention within the product."
"Could have better integration with other security applications."
CrowdStrike Falcon is ranked 1st in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 107 reviews while Cynet is ranked 9th in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 35 reviews. CrowdStrike Falcon is rated 8.8, while Cynet is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of CrowdStrike Falcon writes "Easy to set up with good behavior-based analysis but needs a single-click recovery option". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". CrowdStrike Falcon is most compared with Darktrace, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trend Micro Deep Security, Trend Vision One and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas Cynet is most compared with SentinelOne Singularity Complete, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Stellar Cyber Open XDR. See our CrowdStrike Falcon vs. Cynet report.
See our list of best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) vendors, best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors, and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.
