We compared CylancePROTECT and Trend Micro Deep Security based on our users reviews in five parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: When comparing CylancePROTECT and Trend Micro Deep Security, CylancePROTECT is commended for its effortless implementation and precision, as well as its advanced AI-driven user behavior monitoring. However, it receives negative feedback regarding its cost, lack of user-friendliness, and excessive false positives. Conversely, Trend Micro Deep Security delivers supplementary capabilities like vulnerability protection and a firewall, receiving positive evaluations for its performance, customer support, and compatibility. Areas for improvement include reporting, handling dynamic threats, and affordability. Pricing differs for both solutions, and the customer support for Trend Micro is highly acclaimed.
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"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."
"The non-daily requirement to update signatures is the most valuable feature. From a functional point of view, it is pretty spot on. For instance, we compared an algorithm from five years ago to today's algorithm, and it was 98% accurate. It has the ability to detect and mitigate. In the industrial environment that we work in, there's what we call OT versus IT. You are IT Central, but this is OT. Generally, we don't have the same level of skillset as IT individuals or IT professionals have. This particular product doesn't require you to be a computer scientist to be able to understand its proprietary algorithm and to be able to deploy, use, and work within it. It integrates well with a robust SIEM or SOAR solution, and it plays nice with others. We use other detection solutions like CyberX or site provision with Cisco, and it plays nice. That's one of the things we really liked about it."
"Endpoints are protected in real-time without the need of a centralized server."
"The solution is pretty easy to scale."
"The Application Guard and ByteGuard are useful features."
"A user can continue to add endpoints and the solution will continue to perform well."
"Blackberry Protect offers endpoint protection. It's easy to deploy. It's scalable and stable."
"I rate the tool a ten out of ten when it comes to the ease of use or management part."
"It actively monitors the behavior and activity of processes and will, without hesitation, terminate at root anything it determines to be suspect."
"Deep Security is a good product for managing a few servers."
"DLP, Data Loss Prevention, and the complexity of how we manage the console and how this client, or this tool, will notify us when there is something going wrong within the server and endpoint, is good."
"The most valuable feature of the product is vulnerability detection."
"Some of the main features of this solution are it is reliable and can be used in small to large size businesses."
"It serves its purpose and works well."
"This product offers good protection against many types of malware."
"The performance is good."
"It is stable and we have not faced any challenges during the rolled out"
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"Detections could be improved."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"It's a good solution but some features just need to be updated."
"It is hard to manage."
"The product does not do a lot of reporting on what it is taking care of. Enhanced reporting would be a welcome improvement."
"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."
"The solution needs better dashboards that are easier to use."
"The company that sells us the licenses sometimes doesn't know how to do certain things."
"The product must make the interface a little more user-friendly."
"CylancePROTECT could be improved in its technical support and communication."
"The solution could use more integration."
"The initial setup needs improvement, as it was a bit challenging."
"When implementing this solution, sometimes we have challenges with SQL migration."
"They need to build in a central console because central integration is not very good right now."
"It would be helpful if they could send emails notifying their users about the recommended upgraded versions to address the newly discovered vulnerabilities."
"They are still working on the company integration from TippingPoint because this was a recent acquisition from a few years ago. So, a Tipping Point integration with Deep Security, having one single pane of glass dashboard, would provide us a simple use case."
"It needs to improve its integration with a lot of other products. This should be in the road map because we have a lot of SaaS-based appliances which are not connected with each other."
"Sometimes, the product is not very stable, but it is something that depends on the infrastructure in which the tool is used."
CylancePROTECT is ranked 23rd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 41 reviews while Trend Micro Deep Security is ranked 1st in Virtualization Security with 81 reviews. CylancePROTECT is rated 8.0, while Trend Micro Deep Security is rated 8.6. 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 Trend Micro Deep Security writes "High availability, effective VPM, and responsive support". 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 Trend Micro Deep Security is most compared with Trend Vision One Endpoint Security, CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Symantec Endpoint Security.
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.