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

Field Effect MDR vs Huntress Managed EDR comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 9, 2025

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

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
Huntress Managed EDR
Ranking in Managed Detection and Response (MDR)
2nd
Average Rating
9.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Managed Detection and Response (MDR) category, the mindshare of Field Effect MDR is 3.2%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Huntress Managed EDR is 10.5%, up from 7.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Managed Detection and Response (MDR)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Anto Baharian - PeerSpot reviewer
Never misses anything and has an attractive price point and a simple interface
One thing they could improve is evolving from an EDR to an MDR, like Blackpoint. This transition would enable automatic remediation of anything that looks dangerous, including within Microsoft 365. For instance, when one of my clients' Microsoft 365 account was breached, Blackpoint identified suspicious activity and disabled the account. It was in Dallas, and we are in California. Blackpoint knew something was wrong there, and they went in and disabled the account. Developing more automated remediation features would elevate them to an MDR level, but I understand that it might affect pricing. They are trying to keep it at a good price point because once they go to MDR, it is probably going to double the price. For now, I find the current features satisfactory, as they continue to add improvements. They have added security awareness training and then log collectors. They are adding pillars as they move along, and I assume they are going to have an option for MDR.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is very user-friendly. We have regular reports to see what is going on."
"It provides valuable insights into our IT environment, enabling us to improve reselling, upgrades, and customer management."
"I appreciate the "set it and forget it" nature of Field Effect Covalence."
"We now have a single cybersecurity product that protects all of our threat services, and all the endpoints."
"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."
"I like how comprehensive Field Effect Covalence is."
"One of the most useful and impressive features of the system is its detailed notification mechanism."
"Hackers are trying to breach a business when they least expect it - that's often at night, weekends, and holidays. Covalence never sleeps or misses a second of monitoring."
"I would absolutely recommend Huntress to other users. If you are considering it, go for it."
"It is incredibly efficient for our engineering team because Huntress provides all the information needed to fix issues, not just flag them."
"After deployment, it takes some time to scan and process everything. Huntress has effectively flagged issues such as password files on desktops, which it identifies as low-level alerts. It also handles more significant threats effectively."
"Their SOC is super responsive and does a great job of catching incidences and being on top of any issues that arise."
"The most valuable aspect of Huntress Managed EDR is its personalized approach."
"It is clear, simple, and easy to use. There are things that I can automate in terms of escalation, but if I want to go into the settings and play with it, I can. They provide detailed remediation steps, explaining why an issue is a problem and what steps to take."
"Huntress works more simply. I appreciate how Windows Defender can be managed on computers with it. Previously, I could not modify it unless I had special Microsoft licensing, so it was beneficial to control Windows Defender through a central console to add policies and things like that."
"Huntress is extremely well-written software. I used to be a developer, and I see how they've written it. It's excellent. I've never had an issue with it crashing a machine. It's small, tight code."
 

Cons

"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."
"The ConnectWise PSA integration is two-way but does not send our comments back to the Field Effect portal."
"The interface is perhaps the weakest part of the entire platform, and that does not mean that it is deficient. It is just not as optimized and as efficient as other aspects of the platform."
"In terms of improvement, there are instances where the ARO responses are slightly slower than preferred."
"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."
"One limitation is that if someone takes their laptop outside the office building, the DNS firewall provides minimal coverage, and we are unable to generate reports."
"It would be incredibly valuable to have the Field Effect team handle some of the third-party application patching they're currently identifying."
"I have had a couple of challenges around updates to the agents where it seems it doesn't automatically replace older versions."
"Huntress' Process Insights feature could benefit from more robust search and filtering capabilities."
"Ultimately, the clarity of their alerts is paramount for effective threat communication and could benefit from clearer remediation steps."
"The reporting could be improved by providing a more simplified report that can be easily understood by clients."
"Their EDR can have increased coverage for Macintosh. They do not fully secure Macintosh computers."
"The product could be improved in terms of customization options available for reports."
"In the next release, I'd like to see more intuitive dashboards."
"I'd like it if Huntress could scan for software that's out of date or has open vulnerabilities. That would be useful for us. Scanning for vulnerable software would be helpful. Also, we've set it up to create a ticket in our ticketing system when there's an alert. It would be nice if closing that ticket would also close the Huntress alert. It doesn't do that right now, but they're working on adding that feature."
"Installing Huntress on a Mac presents a challenge for end users due to the operating system's security features, which require administrator privileges for installation."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is on the high end, but it is worth it for the service that you get from them."
"Covalence is cost-effective."
"Field Effect Covalence's pricing is just right."
"Although Covalence is expensive, it provides good value for the price."
"The pricing is comparable to what else is out there."
"The pricing is fair and reasonable."
"We're currently enrolled in the volume package, which offers tiered pricing based on usage."
"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."
"The tool’s price is very good. You just need to pay for the standard license. However, you need to pay the additional cost for Microsoft Defender."
"It is simple. It is reasonable. They raised my prices this year. We never like price increases, but they continue to add value, so we just keep adding agents as we grow and as our clients grow."
"The pricing is competitive, in line with Huntress's offerings, and aligns well with our business model."
"It is very fair. I started at $2.50 and now I am at $3.50. When I signed up, I thought it was too cheap. It now reflects the price. It is very fair. I do not think you can find anything better."
"While other options have emerged since Huntress' arrival, I believe it still offers the best value for the features and services it provides."
"Huntress is an easy sell to clients because it does all the heavy lifting. Sometimes, they will buck a little at the price because they want a free antivirus or EDR. We tell them that we use Huntress on all our machines. That is our standard process for all the machines we roll out. When we give that advice, people are pretty willing to say okay."
"We haven't had any problems with Huntress' pricing. We're at 250 workstations, and we've grown considerably this year. They've been able to handle everything that we've thrown at them within that time frame. They're also reducing the price based on how many endpoints we add."
"It works well for an MSP."
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
54%
Non Profit
4%
Government
4%
Retailer
3%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
7%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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 ...
What do you like most about Huntress?
It is very easy to use. It is a great solution. They are one of the better vendors that I have ever worked with since I have been in the industry.
What needs improvement with Huntress?
There should be more engagement with the MSP group or their largest clients. They should have focus group discussions on what they can do to improve the product. A more transparent way for the supp...
What is your primary use case for Huntress?
We use it for our clients and ourselves. Huntress is a pretty comprehensive platform. Recently, they acquired the security awareness training platform, which helps us to fulfill our clients' needs ...
 

Also Known As

Field Effect Covalence
No data available
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Field Effect MDR vs. Huntress Managed EDR and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.