Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response vs Field Effect MDR comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 3, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Arctic Wolf Managed Detecti...
Ranking in Managed Detection and Response (MDR)
4th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
SOC as a Service (1st)
Field Effect MDR
Ranking in Managed Detection and Response (MDR)
3rd
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Managed Detection and Response (MDR) category, the mindshare of Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response is 9.8%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Field Effect MDR is 3.2%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Managed Detection and Response (MDR)
 

Featured Reviews

Kimberly Brock - PeerSpot reviewer
Real-time threat detection has improved with comprehensive asset scanning
The threat intelligence feature is expected to be a significant advantage. However, a section for software inventory and real-time comparison with current CVEs would be beneficial. One can review an inventory of assets being scanned, including a software inventory along with CVE updates based on a company's software subscriptions, would be a game changer.
Simon Cutler - PeerSpot reviewer
Helps to manage cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and improve our security team's efficiency and security posture
It would be incredibly valuable to have the Field Effect team handle some of the third-party application patching they're currently identifying. While it's fantastic that they're proactive in this area, the time commitment is significant. Integrating patching into their existing service offering would be a game-changer. I'd love to see a tool that aids sales discovery efforts when we engage new clients. Ideally, this internal tool would scan their network environment to identify potential risks and give us a comprehensive picture of their network infrastructure. This would be a huge asset in informing our sales strategies and showcasing our expertise.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution works well for our team as it offers a hands-off approach, which we need."
"Whenever there is a major thing like Exchange vulnerabilities, it scans our Exchange server for indicators of compromise. It then alerts us and points exactly where we need to go to check for ourselves if it is normal or not."
"What's valuable about Arctic Wolf AWN CyberSOC is the cost savings it provides for companies that no longer have to hire a bunch of security people and pay for a SIM."
"They have a portal where you can evaluate and mitigate any vulnerabilities that you and your network might have."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is the managed detection and response component."
"Arctic Wolf is our eyes and ears 24/7 because we can't possibly watch all of our alerts. We may see all of these alerts, but our attention is distracted because we're working on other things."
"After an easy onboarding, the monitoring started immediately."
"Security protection is the best feature of this product."
"The most valuable features are AROs, which provide timely notifications for out-of-compliance or out-of-specification detections."
"There are user notifications about our cloud solutions and access, meaning authentication and possible breaches. Overall, the notifications and alerts are valuable. There are also new features like the DNS protection, which is quite good."
"We now have a single cybersecurity product that protects all of our threat services, and all the endpoints."
"Covalence's cloud protection element has been excellent. A lot of organizations are using 365. It's hard to find a secure solution for protecting accounts. We've gone down the path of trying to utilize other security solutions for that particular area. We've been disappointed and always come back to trying to implement Covalence when we can so we know people are safe."
"It is very user-friendly. We have regular reports to see what is going on."
"The most valuable aspect of Field MDR is the comprehensive visibility the solution offers. Most solutions cover the traditional threat landscape of computers, endpoints, servers, etc. However, there are also things happening within the network environment, such as WiFi, mobile, the Internet of Things, smart TVs, video surveillance systems, etc., that have associated vulnerabilities. Most environments do not manage or protect these assets."
"What I like the most about Field Effect Covalence is the ease of deployment, the fact that it's cost-effective to roll out, and it is reasonable."
"One of the most useful and impressive features of the system is its detailed notification mechanism."
 

Cons

"It can sometimes take up to an hour to get notification of a problem and that's a long time."
"It's nitpicky; however, if it could integrate with more of our products, like our CRM, that would be ideal. They may only integrate with Salesforce. We use a different mid-market CRM."
"While they do inventory assets, including software inventory and CVE updates based on software subscriptions, would be a major improvement."
"They focus on detecting administrator-level control compromises. Because they're focusing more on administrator-level compromise, they are less able to see if an individual user has been compromised. It is, admittedly, very difficult because they don't know what normal human behavior is. If a hacker compromises a human account and then acts just like the human, how are you ever going to notice, unless you have some inside knowledge of how the company works? For example, they overlook account lockouts on user accounts, whereas in our own alerting system, we do not. We review every account lockout, and if it is bad, we contact the person, whereas they think of that as noise because they're more focused on the administrator-level compromise."
"The implementation process could be a little more streamlined."
"The only frustrating aspect is the lack of support for Windows on ARM devices. We cannot fully secure these devices until they release an updated version of their agent software."
"While it isn't a regular occurrence, there have been some gaps in response to some support questions. Questions get answered, yet there are times it takes longer than I'm comfortable with."
"More integrations with various security tools to improve data ingestion would be beneficial."
"The tagging of ARO closure has room for improvement."
"They put too much detail into the emails."
"There are tags for security threats, but I only view them. I do not action anything. I just see what is happening. Sometimes, they are a little bit vague, and I am unsure what they mean, so I leave that to the IT experts. Overall, we are quite satisfied with their product and how it is working."
"I have had a couple of challenges around updates to the agents where it seems it doesn't automatically replace older versions."
"It would be greatly beneficial to integrate compliance-related reporting directly into the portal."
"Covalence should provide a live view of the endpoint because the endpoint view in the portal is 5 to 15 minutes behind the actual status of the endpoint and its vulnerabilities. When it doesn't update with the actual status, it makes managing those things harder because sometimes something gets updated, and one of those vulnerabilities has gone away, but that doesn't appear in the ARO."
"If they can include an email filter system, that would be great."
"While it's essential to stay informed about potential issues, the recurring notifications about past vulnerabilities can lead to confusion and may detract from our focus on current threats."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is more expensive than CrowdStrike, but it also has more features. I don't remember the amount, but I do remember that it was on the higher side. I believe we have five sensors, and the sensors have a yearly cost. We don't have any additional costs, but I know that if we have more features, they will add to the cost."
"I find their pricing to be reasonable and competitive."
"The pricing is fair."
"I rate the tool's pricing a nine out of ten."
"The pricing is pretty competitive."
"It is on the high end, but it is worth it for the service that you get from them."
"The licensing model itself is solid, but we're ironing out some inconsistencies in how customer profiles are configured."
"While the contract duration might change, the pricing remains highly attractive."
"It is a little pricey. It is a little on the high end, but we are continuing to use it. We signed the contract and have not canceled, so we find value in having it."
"While Field Effect Covalence's pricing seems competitive for the market, the biggest hurdle lies in the lack of dedicated security budgets within many organizations."
"Field Effect Covalence's pricing is just right."
"We're currently enrolled in the volume package, which offers tiered pricing based on usage."
"Field Effect is fairly priced from my perspective. You get a lot of bang for the buck with this and a level of visibility that provides you with greater peace of mind knowing that the system is carefully monitored. You also have automated responses for known malicious behavior at any time of the day. Someone could have their Office 365 mailbox compromised at 2 in the morning on a Saturday when most people are asleep or not paying attention, and the system can prevent an issue in an automated way."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed Detection and Response (MDR) solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Computer Software Company
54%
Non Profit
4%
Government
4%
Retailer
3%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response?
The agents give pretty good visibility into what is happening at the endpoint.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response?
The pricing is okay and comparable to other solutions, with competitive pricing obtained for most options. We value the ease of use and hands-off approach.
What needs improvement with Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response?
The only frustrating aspect is the lack of support for Windows on ARM devices. We cannot fully secure these devices until they release an updated version of their agent software.
What do you like most about Field Effect Covalence?
It is very user-friendly. We have regular reports to see what is going on.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Field Effect Covalence?
In our evaluation, two years ago, we found the Field Effect Covalence product and service to be the simplest to set up and pricing was lower than the other competitors.
What needs improvement with Field Effect Covalence?
The solution could improved DNS filtering and fuller integration into ConnectWise PSA (I understand both are in the works). The current roaming DNS filter doesn't seem to be too complete and we're ...
 

Also Known As

Arctic Wolf AWN CyberSOC
Field Effect Covalence
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Agero, Madison Memorial Hospital, DLZ, Howard LLP, City of Sparks
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response vs. Field Effect MDR and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.