CrowdStrike Falcon Insight XDR Reviews

We use this solution for threat protection and endpoint security.

Recently, we added on CrowdStrike OverWatch and Insightsoftware for better reporting. OverWatch monitors East-West issues that CrowdStrike Protect doesn't see. New next-generation endpoint security doesn't scan your PC. It doesn't scan files nightly. People have to get past that, it's so old school. 

I have 50 end-users, one hundred endpoints, and workers of all types, both in-house and remote workers.

With the addition of Overwatch and the Insight tool, the reporting has gotten better and I've gained some quality insight that helps me remedy compliance issues and maintain security posture; however, in a year and a half, we haven't had an actual positive detection across a hundred endpoints. The reason for that is mostly due to our employee training and the way that our complete security stack is configured. I hope that the way that I've got it configured right now is the sole reason that we literally aren't letting things in.

If the solution sees some issues, it reports them. Even though they're false positives, in a different scenario, what it's reporting could be a threat. Usually, they're just executables that were downloaded and installed by me. That's to be fully expected and maybe they came from a vendor, but it wasn't signed. 

It's given me a level of confidence that my network is secure — the fact that it's not finding anything; however, I am not experiencing the issues that competitors are saying I should be experiencing. I literally have to test it manually to know it's working.

Falcon Protect looks at processes and issues in real-time.

CrowdStrike Falcon by itself does not supply in-depth reporting. 

Falcon Protect does what it does. It's endpoint security — nothing more, nothing less. 

What it does, It does well. However, if you need more information on what it found and how it got there (including board reporting and compliance reporting), that's not there. Some of the other solutions that are available give you that, right out of the box.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for the past year and a half.

We haven't experienced any issues regarding the stability of CrowdStrike Falcon.

CrowdStrike Falcon is scalable. I've only got one hundred endpoints and I know companies that are hundreds of times bigger who use it.

Trying to get somebody on the phone might not always be the easiest thing, but they usually respond in a fairly timely manner. I haven't had any issues where I've needed them to immediately fix things.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give their customer support a rating of nine.

We had a Vipre solution, but it was an On-Prem solution. The server was aging out and the software was up for renewal. It wasn't working well with our remote workers; they're not literally connected to my network so updating them was always a pain-point without a cloud-based solution.

We were going to transition to "cloud" and Vipre just wasn't really up to the level of CrowdStrike at the time.

The deployment literally took about 15 minutes across the wide area network. Regarding configuration, we took a look at it with their tech support and Implementation team. There's literally maybe a dozen settings and we basically maxed them out.

The price of CrowdStrike Falcon is a little high, but it can be negotiated.

If you're thinking about implementing this solution, I would suggest getting Overwatch and Insight along with it. Also, don't be afraid to try and negotiate for a better price.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.

The reporting is part of the Overwatch and Insight combination. It's doing what we want it to do and it's not causing a lot of overhead. Like I said earlier, maybe we're an anomaly. We don't have a lot of issues on our network.

I like that it's cloud-based instead of on-premise.

I miss a feature for the USB control that they have as an add-on. I haven't gotten to the point where I want to pay for it, but the features that I miss are available.

The biggest issue with Falcon as a standalone product is it doesn't have very much reporting.
Out of the box, the only weakness is the level of reporting.

All the analytics and the telemetry are there, it's just a matter of getting to it. Other vendors offer some of that stuff right out of the box.

CrowdStrike Falcon has been very low maintenance. There are features on it that I haven't touched yet. I've got a SIEM that I haven't really had time to explore fully. I have a patch management system that does what it does. I have a firewall and IDS that do what they do, and I have an endpoint security system that does what it does.

MSPs keep asking how one person can keep up to the different solutions and alerting, if you don't have any problems, then it's pretty easy to keep up. Everything does what it does.  I don't experience any of the issues that apparently a lot of people have on their network. How can I tell you what to improve if it's doing what it's supposed to do? 

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon since June of 2019. 

The stability is good; we haven't experienced any glitches or bugs.

We're a small company so the scalability is fine for us.

I don't have to talk to their technical support often. When I need help, I contact them by email.  Sometimes it takes a little while to get through to them, but otherwise, when they respond the issue is resolved. Not a real concern. 

We had Vipre business on-premise, the product was being discontinued and I wanted to move away from an on-premise solution.  At the time Vipre did not seem to be quite as mature as other options.  I understand that they have improved quite a bit since I looked at them last.

The initial setup was straightforward. Initial agent deployment took roughly 15 minutes.  SIEM integration required some coordination between vendors, but was relatively uneventful when support teams were involved.

Licensing cost is negotiable. There are no additional costs.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. I'm sure there's always something that can be improved.

We evaluated Vipre, Carbon Black, and a few others.

There are half a dozen players out there that are the best of the breed. Pick one.

When it came to CrowdStrike versus Carbon Black, configuration and setup were deciding, driving factors. CrowdStrike was much easier to configure, but overall, is it better or worse? I can't make that judgment call.

All I know is what I've been told by other vendors that are trying to get my business. They tell me about issues that I've never encountered with the products that I have. In summary, take what a vendor says about another vendor's product with a grain of salt.

We are using this solution for advanced threat protection, over and above any antivirus for approximately 1200 end-users, or endpoints. It is able to identify any anomalies and alert on that using the AI engine. That way, there's a small security team to make them more effective, to be able to get an alert, go in and look at what's going on. 

Since I have been here, I have been keying into when people fall for phishing attacks and they either get blocked going to a website or their credentials get compromised, and somebody logs in to their Office 365 account. We were able to forensically identify that in two of the cases. Most recently, since I've been here looking at the more active response, to be able to identify and act a little bit more quickly.

I was able to look through some rapid analysis when bad things happen. More so than having to get, especially in the distributed world of post-COVID, being able to have a central place to be able to see what's going on, on the landscape of endpoints at any given time.

The feature that I find to be the most valuable, is being able to look at the system analysis and being able to baseline what is installed on the system. What does it usually do, and is it doing anything differently?

The UI is great, and the performance was great. The way it gathers and presents the information was very good and it integrates well with things with a central log aggregator, such as Splunk. You can do more big data analytics that includes security. It seems to be fully featured in all of those areas.

I think there's an opportunity to enhance the AI or at least the traps to say, if something changes from this baseline, let us know and flag it. It's got a pretty good engine to do that on its own but it's one of the things that are important to us, so I'm just trying to increase the time-to-issue identification.

By comparison to buying into the Microsoft suite, it was definitely less costly. CrowdStrike can be costly.

I have had this solution for approximately three years.

It seems stable. The performance is good.

It's a scalable solution. They are running 1400 endpoints on it right now, and it seems to be fine.

There is only one person working at it right now and they are the security engineer/operator.

If you look at how they spend their day, a tool like that does a lot with a little and can make a one man band pretty effective or much more effective. It makes the response to an issue right when it happens way more possible with such small security. 

We haven't used technical support.

The initial setup was already completed before I started with this company.

When comparing to Microsoft, CrowdStrike Falcon is more expensive.

I'm going by the client and some of the things that are driving their decisions. 

It's typical when Microsoft throws things in and it seems really cheap, even though you're spending a million and a half dollars with them. You may as well increase the value of that million and a half.

My guess is that CrowdStrike is going to maintain parity or stay ahead of Microsoft.

As I came into this organization, they were moving away from CrowdStrike. 

They upgraded their license to E5 with the security bundle from Microsoft. The goal is to start to move things. 

They are paying twice for things right now, but that will be expiring. CrowdStrike comes up for renewal next year, and they want to be off of it by then.

I haven't gone into critiquing it. Since they've already made the decision and made the investment to go to defender ATP. I'm more concerned with, are we losing anything? Do we have parity when we go from one platform to another? And if any gaps emerge, what needs to be filled?

When we did go into it and walked through it with one of the security engineers, it was snappy, and it had a nice UI. 

I had never been inside the product. I think I got a demo years ago in my CSO role, but I had never delved into a practical use case. The practical use case looked pretty cool.

For anyone who is interested in implementing this solution, I would say don't look for the cost compared to smaller applications. Look at what you're trying to do, and what you're trying to accomplish. The typical first cardinal sin of IT is buying a product and then figuring out how to use it as opposed to having a set of requirements, placing a value on that set of requirements, and then pursuing a solution that covers them the best. 

I think they probably said we've got a gap here because something bad happened to my CrowdStrike. It's an industry leader. Three years after the issue that they were treating was over, and the pain was gone, suddenly, it seems really expensive. That is an IT 101 mistake that I've found in organizations, where it's a means to an end and then it turns this to just an eyesore on the balance sheet.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case is digital security investigations using the dashboard.

Every week, a manager would look at a detailed report to see what kind of CrowdStrike incidents we had.

The most valuable feature is the indicator of compromise, which shows you what file was either quarantined or removed. It shows you the malicious files in question, as well as the exact time, the machine, the endpoint, and the host IP address. Everything you need to know is right there in a single dashboard.

Any kind of integration that you want to do, such as using the API to connect to a SIEM, is complex and it will be expensive to do. It is quite a pricey product.

I used CrowdStrike Falcon in my last two cybersecurity jobs, over a period of at least two years.

The product is stable as a rock. I have never seen any crashes. When it came to patching updates, we were always notified. It is not Windows-based, but rather Linux or Unix-based. It was more stable than any Windows product.

We had a small shop, so we never had any reason to scale.

The technical support is pretty good. They're trained in their product and they have a system in place where if the first line of support does not resolve the issue, they are emailing us directly back and forth, and they'll hand over the problem from one shift to the next.

It is not very difficult to get in touch with the support team, although it does require clearance from whoever handles the money aspect. You have to be really careful because they will charge you fees for any kind of solution that they provide.

I have used them twice, once for each company that I was working for. The first time, we used the CrowdStrike service to do the investigation so that we could focus our time on other products. They have teams that will act like a managed service provider to take care of incidents. We handled major incidents in-house but we let them handle the minor ones.

With the second company, we had to do the investigations as the incidents came in, so it was two totally separate vantage points. Both worked extremely well in both manners and forms.

CrowdStrike was already in place before I arrived, at both places where I have used it.

We were also using Carbon Black, as well as other tools, but they were not being used to the same degree. I think that we were using Carbon Black for white-listing applications.

I also spent a lot of time using Nessus, which is a vulnerability scanner. I would look at scans to see what kind of vulnerabilities were present, and patch management updates with other teams.

I was not there for the initial setup, but what I did learn was that the implementation team came in and worked with our engineering team. They set it up and then our team verified that all of the endpoints where there and that we had the visibility we needed for all of the subnets in all of the locations.

When I spoke with my teammate, I was told that it was pretty much straightforward and out of the box. The fact that it is a cloud-based deployment made it easier, too.

Our licensing fees were between $50,000 and $60,000 per year, which was pretty expensive for a small business. It is not a one-time payment. Any upgrades that you want to do, you're going to have to pay multiple times.

My advice for anybody who is implementing CrowdStrike Falcon is to get in touch with the vendor and then follow best practices. They have a lot of documentation and everything is there. For the most part, I would suggest looking at the technical support documentation first and then contacting a representative at the vendor to continue the process.

Most companies have it integrated with the SIEM and with their ticketing system, although I did not use it in that capacity because it costs more money.

Most of the time, you're not going to have to lay a finger. Once it finds an infected file, you might have to reboot the computer if it can't immediately remove it, or other such minor stuff. In general, however, it's never given me any issues and it's never given me a headache. Overall, it's very straightforward and just one tool out of the whole.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for threat intelligence.

The threat intelligence on offer is the solution's most valuable aspect.

The solution is very stable.

The solution can scale easily.

The pricing is very competitive.

The solution overall is a good product, and we don't see too much room for improvement.

Support, particularly related to after-sales and after deployment, could be improved a bit. If you need to connect to support, it takes at least a day to reach the support team and get a proper reply.

The solution could use better device control.

I believe I've been using the solution for the past three years.

The solution is very stable. We don't find there are any bugs or glitches. We haven't had it crash or freeze on us. It's quite reliable.

The scalability of the solution is good. If a company needs to expand out, they can do so easily with this solution.

In our organization, we have about 2,500 people using the solution. We already use the solution at 100% capacity, meaning everyone in the company uses it. If new employees are onboarded, they also use the solution. Chances are, we will increase usage int he future.

Technical support could move a bit faster. We find that it takes time - at least a day - to reach support and then get a response. Therefore, we're not completely satisfied with the level of service provided to us. It's an area that could be improved upon for sure.

We used to use Carbon Black. We switched due to the fact that this solution offered us better partnership offers.

The initial setup is not complex. It's very, very easy.

You can set up and deploy the product in 30 to 40 minutes. It's straightforward.

You only need a few people to handle deployment and maintenance.

The price is very reasonable and quite competitive in the market.

Before choosing this solution, and switching from Carbon Black, we looked at Endgame and Kaspersky.

We are working with all the versions for the most part, due to the fact that we are partners of CrowdStrike and we position CrowdStrike to our customers. We also use the solution for our company.

I'd recommend the solution to others, however, I would advise that they try it first as a POC so that they can first see the value of the product.

Overall, I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If technical support could be faster and there was more device control, I would rate the solution higher.

We primarily use the product as a security solution.

Their endpoint is pretty flawless. There is no lag on the machines at all. Even though I have a good overview of all the machines, that's pretty much the most valuable feature of CrowdStrike Falcon. 

The machines are flawless. They don't have any issues. There I don't even recognize the machines which are on endpoints. Even when I go to the console to check these machines, they are working on a very good level, even though the wireless migration should detect those aspects. 

The AI features are pretty good.

They've recently introduced more webinars that make remote learning of the solution very easy. For people such as myself, or even a company looking to develop their skillsets and interested in better understanding the cloud, providing good web courses is really helpful.

I'm new to the solution. Currently, I'm comparing it to other EDR solutions to see if anything is missing, however, I'm still learning the ins and outs of the product.

It may be due to the fact that I am new, however, I'm having trouble understanding their licensing.

It does take more time to scan than other solutions.

The solution should continue to make the learning curve as short as possible by providing even more training and documentation.

I've been working with the solution for two months. I recently joined my company and they mostly prefer using CrowdStrike Falcon. The solution is pretty new to me.

The stability of the solution is excellent, especially in a market like India.

The product is very scalable. The solution can scale well, especially for small setups looking to expand out in the future.

If they're having an issue, we tend to stick to the team and occasionally reach out to the support team of Falcon CrowdStrike.

I've never directly been in contact with the technical support team, however, my colleagues have. I'd say that overall we are satisfied with their level of service. Typically, their technical support team will give us direct intel and then our internal team with resolve the issue, so it's a true partnership.

Also, during the pandemic, they've provided everyone with lots of webinars to help their clients understand the solution better. For me especially, being anew user, I'm benefitting from this new level of service.

We've used different solutions in the past. It really depends on the environment. That typically dictates which solution we would implement. We use, for example, McAfee as well. I personally have worked with Amnesia.

When it comes to Amnesia, initially I was able to employ them on my on-premise machine. I have installed Falcon on the cloud and infrastructure, however, I haven't dealt with the on-premise deployment. 

You can use Amnesia with McAfee. Apart from that you also have a provision for signing with McAfee and using their host software and the server software and their media solution and placing those onto an on-premise machine or onto a particular server and you would have the ability to administrate from there. That's more for a company that is into privacy and doesn't want to share their data on a cloud.

The solution isn't complex in terms of setup. It's very straightforward, actually.

I'm sure that for small environments or a company that may scale up, the installation would be minimal. It wouldn't be a standard installation, however, we're able to implement rather easily in small environments.

The solution is much more costly than other cloud or on-premises solutions. However, it offers good stability, so if a client can afford it, we tend to recommend it as an option.

I'm currently checking other EDR solutions to see what is on offer. Clients are asking about McAfee and Symantec, so I am looking at those as options.

I'm unsure which version of the solution we are using.

I'm currently practicing my skills on this EDR solution. I have worked with this software and I've already collaborated with my seniors who are currently experts on this particular product. I'm getting pretty good help. 

Most of our clients have their own infrastructure which is mostly on the cloud. They have their own solid, robust infrastructure. When it comes to small environments that are currently adapting to the cloud, CrowdStrike could be a great opportunity. The solution, for example, doesn't require a minimum installation. It can work well for very small companies as well as larger organizations.

If a company has the financial means, we tend to recommend this product. There are great security features on offer that are much better than other options in India at this time.

I'd advise companies considering this solution to check their resources. They have to choose the option between being on-premise and the cloud option. They need to try and run it before adopting any solution. It's important also to consider security and monitoring for threats.

Overall, I'd recommend companies study their environment and check and compile an e-solutions calendar. There's a lot of them. Microsoft has provided a 99GB advanced dataset collection and it is on the cloud.

I'd rate this product seven out of ten overall. While I've never had any problems with it, there are just so many other options on the market.

We primarily use the solution as advanced threat protection. It is used to protect all endpoints, servers, etc. 

They're very good at what they do. As far as the product is, in its current state, I don't have any complaints at all right now. They do a quarterly review with us, just so they can let us know how many viruses or how much malware they've stopped, etc. Those features are quite good. They also go through the portal step-by-step to describe whatever they improved or tightened up. They will explain everything clearly and in a way that a customer can understand.

They do also ask for feedback, which is nice. They'll ask things like "The last time we changed this, how was your experience?" or "Did you get a lot of false positives?" or "Did you get any complaints?" etc. That's pretty good. Not many companies do that.

The UI is simple and self-explanatory. Everything is easy to understand.

So far, in the past three years, they've been absolutely great. They've been more proactive than the solution we had previously was. They even introduced new products in their line and they came back and told us that they could add that product to our current solution. At first, we added them, then we decided we had sufficient resources in house to manage it ourselves and removed it. They were great about the change. 

They've caught quite a lot of viruses and malware that have been sent through improper links, which is very reassuring. 

They report any network isolation that has been done on certain endpoints if they detect a malicious file or malware on the device that couldn't be cleaned by automation. They isolate it or us. The end-user can contact the service desk and say, "Hey, I'm not able to surf the internet. I can't do anything, so can you help me?" or we're able to look at the endpoint and see "oh, your PC is infected, that's why you aren't allowed on." It's protecting us well.

Even though the users are somewhere else, even when they're not at headquarters, we are able to remediate everything before we put them on the network again. Those network isolations are great when we detect high threat malicious items. Those are valuable tools that we appreciate.

If an operating system is stopped by support by the original vendor like Microsoft, or maybe Apple, within a few weeks, CrowdStrike will also decide they no longer support it, and they kind of move on. I understand their model. However, if we still have the OS, it's hard to keep it protected. So, for example, if Microsoft decides to stop supporting or patching a solution, Crowdstrike too will stop supporting it and making updates. It's still a useable product, it's just not getting updates or patches and therefore may be vulnerable. 

The result is that we can't guarantee we're going to be able to protect that hardware or operating system. We either have to upgrade to a newer platform, which sometimes is not possible because you have a legacy application. Whatever that constraint is, sometimes we're not able to move things. We still have to rely on other products to support that. That's the only quandary I have with them. 

Basically, they don't cover legacy OS or applications. That's the only issue we're concerned about.

When a file is infected or it detects a ransomware file network, when it does remediate, it should self-heal as Sophos does. That's a good feature to have, but I don't know enough pros and cons about that to kind of recommend that because if it is a false positive, that may be a problem. If it detected a valid file and if for some reason it decides, "Oh, this looks like an infection," and maybe it's not actually infected, and if it goes in and remediates it by replacing it with an older file, that may be a problem. However, I don't know, because I've never used that feature or heard anybody say that's a problem.

I've been using the solution for about three years now.

I have two engineers that regularly watch everything. We all get alerts. We'll see if something gets isolated, or a user will tell us. We isolate the issues and work on them so nothing gets through the endpoints into the system. Within 30 minutes to an hour, an issue can be cleared.

It's therefore very stable. We're able to catch everything before it can get it. It's reliable for sure.

They're so pro-active there's very little intervention that we have to do on our end.

The solution is easily scalable. A company shouldn't have any issues with that aspect of the solution.

Technical support is great. We've never had to contact them at all. Instead, they've always been proactive and reached out to us.

Their quarterly review manager will contact us every three months. They schedule it months ahead and we actually jump on a Zoom or WebEx meeting. They actually go through the improvements, how much detections they go through, all of our features, anything new that has been added, anything they're seeing out in the world in terms of threats, and where we need to tighten up the roles.

They would improve the sensitivity level or they will decrease the sensitivity level for some false positives. For example, they might say "Hey, we detect these, but they're not really a threat because this is just a Word document that's produced in an older format. It's not something that's malicious." Then they would decrease the sensitivity in certain areas, to eliminate the issue going forward. They always ask permission before tweaking anything. They will come to us and say, "this is what we're considering doing it and why we want to do it. Is that okay?" We usually agree to that and then they go ahead and do it.

It's just a phenomenal company. If they ever stopped the way they handle their customer service, then I would probably move on to a different company. So far they've been pretty good. For the last three years, they contacted us always and told us about every aspect of the solution. I don't think I missed a quarterly meeting so far with them due to the fact that it's all been so valuable.

Originally, we had Webroot. We used to get, every so often, a slew of viruses that would get through the cracks. I don't know if Webroot's definition didn't get updated in a timely manner or if they were just delayed in something, however, whatever it was, we used to get that intrusion quite a bit. Then we would patch it and we would have to remediate everything. It wasn't ideal. 

We were looking for a product that would be more proactive than a reactive solution, and after doing a bunch of research, we decided on CrowdStrike. 

The solution's initial setup was very simple. The only thing we had an issue with is our network operation. Is a separate organization that manages it. We have a network operation that we used for 24 hour monitoring. They don't support CrowdStrike and they were not experts in it. They stood us we would have to manage it ourselves. In the beginning, we were kind of worried about it. However, after that initial stage, the simplicity of how to install it, configure it was like a breeze.

We manage the entire solution in house. For maintenance, we have me and two engineers, plus a second level of support. There are around five people altogether.

I'm not sure of the exact cost of the solution. That's a detail our finance department handles.

We did research on Cylance. We looked at Norton as well. We went through a bunch of products and we decided CrowdStrike was probably the most advanced threat protection at that time, which was three years ago. 

One of the products we were looking at is Sophos. The reason we were looking at Sophos is we were purchasing a backup and disaster recovery tool. In that tool, they had a built-in Sophos pack; they integrated Sophos in to protect the backup and replication and recovery. That way, if a backup had infections, for some reason, and they weren't picked up, and it got into our backup product, then Sophos could kick in and pick it up. It has automated remediation, meaning it reverses back the infection before infection if that makes sense.

Sophos has a self-healing technology built into it, which is an AI technology that they invented. We were looking at that because we thought that may be a better product. We were doing some homework on that and trying to figure out more about it. We're still in the process of purchasing a backup and recovery tool, so we're still doing our homework.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. The last time I checked, it was version 5.6. It is up-to-date, however. I get a report every so often saying, we've updated the sensors, or current version, etc. It's an auto-update and it does that. Whenever it's missing something or it couldn't reach an endpoint, the company will send me a report of that, saying these endpoints are not updated because we couldn't detect it on the network any longer.

The only advice I would say to others considering the solution is, if they have an unsupported operating system or legacy application, to look closely at CrowdStrike to see if the solution actually makes sense for them. This is due to the fact that they're not going to be able to support it. If they have thousands of servers and 20% of them are legacy applications, they may not want to think about CrowdStrike because the solution doesn't support legacy products. Other than that, I fully recommend CrowdStrike. The advanced threat protection they have has always been great.

I'd rate the solution a solid nine out of ten.

I use it for cloud workload protection and threat detection in AWS environments.

The pay-as-you-go model enabled me to deploy quickly from the AWS Marketplace management account.

It scaled protection for workloads without upfront commitments and reduced the initial operational overhead.

It provides real-time visibility into cloud threats, helping stop breaches faster in dynamic AWS setups.

I find the seamless AWS integration and single lightweight agent to have minimal performance impact.

The cloud-native SIEM and runtime security leverages threat intelligence for proactive detection.

Flexible billing through AWS is ideal for startups testing security without long-term locks.

I believe that AI-powered SOAR workflow suggestions could streamline incident response.

I have been using it for 1 month.

We are a new startup, so we did not use any previous solutions.

The pay-as-you-go model excels for startups with variable AWS workloads, avoiding large upfront costs and scaling with usage.

I evaluated Prisma Cloud, Wiz, and Orca Security alongside native AWS options.

CrowdStrike Falcon for AWS (pay-as-you-go) delivers strong cloud-native protection via AWS Marketplace, which is ideal for startups scaling workloads.

I use CrowdStrike Falcon for EDR and security purposes. Also, I am using file integrity monitoring, asset management, and patch management modules. Additionally, I'm also utilizing an identity protection module.

CrowdStrike Falcon needs to improve their host management system.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for a year and a half. I am using the latest version. I am a partner of CrowdStrike.

The solution offers great stability. I have faced no issues with the tool.

There are 5,000 users using the solution.

I only contacted technical support to ask a few questions, and they helped me out.

The solution's initial setup process was easy. The deployment process took only 10 hours for 5,000 clients.

The tool is a little bit expensive compared to other products, but I think it's okay owing to its quality.

Protection has been good in the solution. I got only one false positive in a year and a half, which is great.

There is no suggestion to provide because it is easy to implement, and there are no exclusions or testing required. If you plan to try it, it should work well without any issues.

Overall, I rate the product a nine point seven out of ten.

We use it to monitor everything related to the activity and to block any malicious activity. We are new in the security field in our company.

All the features are beneficial.

They should provide us with good visibility for everything.

We have been using this solution for two years, and it is deployed on cloud. We are also using the latest version.

The stability is amazing, and we don't have any issues.

It is scalable. We have 700 users, and we plan to increase the usage. We only need about three technical staff for deployment and maintenance, a senior systems engineer and two infrastructure managers.

We've used technical support, and I rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

The setup was straightforward, and it took one month to enable the policy and use cases. We completed it in-house.

It has an annual license, and it is not that expensive.

We evaluated Trend Micro before moving forward with CrowdStrike Falcon.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten. Regarding advice, it is important to learn about CrowdStrike Falcon's capabilities and features. It would be easier to use if they gave that understanding.