We performed a comparison between Digital Guardian and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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 product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"It is stable and scalable."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"The feature we call desktop recording is the most valuable aspect of the solution. Not only can we collect data from the user's usage, but we also capture his screenshots when he is trying to steal the data."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"In Digital Guardian, they have the cloud correlation servers that give you visibility work like EBR and the correlation server works very well for security analysis."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint comes pre-installed in Microsoft Windows."
"I find the vulnerability management section of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint to be very useful for organizations."
"It's stable."
"DFE organizational security posture has been a positive experience. We're a Microsoft house. It works. Once it's deployed and once it's configured, it works and our clients tend to be happy with it. I haven't really experienced anyone who has been so unsatisfied with the platform that they wanted to go a couple of different directions, that has never happened to me."
"The ransomware and malware protection is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable aspect is information, specifically the automatic investigation of packages."
"The main features of this solution are that it handles everything by itself and is well integrated."
"I enjoy using the live response feature, which allows me to remotely access different endpoints and investigate malicious files, such as malware that people may have downloaded, and other related issues."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"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 support needs improvement."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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"
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The room for improvement with Digital Guardian is that it will be better with the Linux agent because it is the only DLP solution for Linux workstations. It still needs to upgrade the agents to the latest version for the Linux kernel."
"Technical support could be better."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
"When considering potential areas for improvement, it may be beneficial for Digital Guardian to optimize its processes and reduce the computational demands on the system, particularly with regard to high CPU usage. Although Digital Guardian offers numerous benefits, it can consume a substantial amount of RAM and CPU power."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"It would be helpful if there was an on-premise version of the solution for companies that cannot use the cloud, such as government sectors."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"Digital Guardian is an excellent solution but our experience with the partner has been the most horrible experience we have ever had with any partner."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can improve by making the reporting faster. It takes some time to reflect back to the administration portal of what has been updated. For example, out of 100 Computers, approximately 90 computers received updates, but when you check the administration portal over one or two days, you will only see 75, even though 90 were updated."
"Updates are not coming out of preview quickly enough and it is holding back on the development of the product."
"This solution is not secure, which is why I have moved to Linux."
"The pricing could be a bit better."
"We would like to see more tools for managing on-premises security... Sometimes, we have the tools, like Defender, to manage security in the cloud, but because we are so focused on the cloud, we forget the fact that we need to be sure about the security of the on-premises environment, specifically Active Directory."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is effective for validating work, but not ideal for investigations."
"Its detection is not as quick. There should also be more frequent updates."
"In active mode, it's great that it gives you so much information, but it does record every keystroke so you have a lot of logs... that amount of data logging started to add up in the cost."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
Digital Guardian is ranked 19th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 11 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 2nd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 182 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, CrowdStrike Falcon and Faronics Deep Freeze, whereas Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon and Microsoft Intune. See our Digital Guardian vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint report.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) 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.