We compared CylancePROTECT and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business based on our users reviews in five parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: After reviewing both CylancePROTECT and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, it is clear that CylancePROTECT stands out for its easy deployment, accurate threat detection, and powerful machine-learning capabilities. However, it does receive criticism for its pricing, lack of user-friendliness, and inadequate support. On the other hand, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business offers a user-friendly interface, efficient management, and strong overall performance. Areas of improvement for Kaspersky include pricing, deployment efficiency, and support. Despite mixed reviews on pricing and support for both products, CylancePROTECT places a greater emphasis on AI-based threat detection, while Kaspersky prioritizes user-friendliness and control.
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The stability is very good."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Centralized dashboard online which can be used for managing a huge product."
"The most valuable features of CylancePROTECT are its powerful machine-learning capabilities and predictive intelligence."
"A user can continue to add endpoints and the solution will continue to perform well."
"It is extremely simple to manage and deploy."
"Blackberry Protect offers endpoint protection. It's easy to deploy. It's scalable and stable."
"It handles situations that the other threat management tools wouldn't find. It has worked well covering the weaker sides of the other products that we're integrating."
"What I like best about CylancePROTECT is its accuracy, as it doesn't give many false positives."
"One of the best features of the solution is that it's easy to deploy."
"The interface is friendly."
"Endpoint Security is efficient and easy to use. It doesn't slow the performance of your personal computer."
"It performs quite well as a firewall protection provider."
"One of the main features of this solution is the fast scanning capabilities."
"There is excellent integration with the app directory."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is a very powerful tool for us. We use a lot of third-party software that integrates well with the solution."
"Overall, the product is quite flexible."
"The solution is user-friendly and the dashboard is good."
"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."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"Detections could be improved."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"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"
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"An area for improvement in CylancePROTECT is its pricing, as it's a bit costly."
"It's a good solution but some features just need to be updated."
"I would like to see them fix the alerting system so that the endpoint reporting is a bit more streamlined."
"It needs real analysis of quarantined files. The EDR product isn't showing much right now."
"The product must make the interface a little more user-friendly."
"The product needs to continue to offer better alerts. In particular, around false positives. It needs to reduce them from happening."
"The OPTICS component could be made more user-friendly with respect to giving people more information."
"It could have integration with industrial base HMIS or Human Machine Interfaces Solutions. This is the industrial environment where you have a control center for all the automation that's happening, whether it is oil, gas, or chemical manufacturing. They often have to set up a computer at the back and watch the other stuff to get alerts. In these autonomous or on-premises environments, they often don't have access to email readily. Integration with other industrial solutions, such as HMIS, will allow them to communicate and get an alert that something has been found. This way, they can react to it sooner than having somebody watch the screen and keep checking the screen. Rockwell has its own suite. Similarly, Honeywell has its own suite. There's also an independent HMI/historian solution provider out there called VTSCADA. We actually get asked if we can get it to show up on a screen, which is difficult. Getting those alerts to work within an industrial environment would be a huge plus."
"he next thing that I would like to see in this solution are DLP features."
"It would be better if it were more secure and stable. I would also like to see more powerful features in the next release."
"When it comes to handling the expiration of licenses, the solution should give a company more time to set up a renewal. It happens too abruptly right now."
"The solution could use better reporting."
"I'd like to see them improve encryption and remote management in the future. Kaspersky could also improve its scanning technology. Other solutions have adopted machine learning and deep learning, but Kaspersky still uses signature-based scanning."
"It needs more computer resources. They should have more anti-spam features."
"There have been some performance issues. They provide good security, but this slows down the performance of machines' servers. The software is not updating as frequently as we need."
"The process for upgrades is very slow."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
CylancePROTECT is ranked 23rd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 41 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 111 reviews. CylancePROTECT is rated 8.0, while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CylancePROTECT writes "Ensures advanced AI-driven threat detection to provide robust endpoint security, effectively preventing both known and unknown threats with minimal impact on system performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". CylancePROTECT is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Endpoint Security, whereas Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Trend Vision One Endpoint Security. See our CylancePROTECT vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.