CrowdStrike Falcon Reviews

Primary use is for endpoint investigations.

It allows us to determine root cause, do the analysis, a lot quicker.

Visibility into the endpoint rate. Understanding what processes are running on the system, what registry keys have been enabled. Pretty much understanding the whole frantic side of the endpoint.

It would be nice if we could extrapolate indicators of compromise and write them within sandboxes.

It's fairly stable. We haven't been having too many issues with that.

It scales quite well because it's cloud-based and subscription-based. It can scale pretty quickly.

I would say technical support is fairly good. They understand the technology quite well so they are able to support us a lot better.

The most important criteria when selecting a vendor come down to the capability of the technology, the cost, the support, how it fits into our overall architecture strategy, and the stability of the company. For instance, if it's a small company and they go under, you might as well have not invested in it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10 because it has all the features that we need. It's within our budget, and it fits into our overall architecture strategy. There are a few features that could be added, as mentioned.

I would recommend this technology.

We use Falcon to check the login attempts of the users. We can see who has logged in and when. We can see which workstation is assigned to each user. CrowdStrike helps us enforce policies, such as USB policies and users recycling passwords. 

CrowdStrike is deployed on every workstation, so policy changes can be enforced on all of them. It lowers the manual work on each of the workstations. It has helped us manage device usage in our environment. 

I like CrowdStrike's policies. The integration is easy to do. I can remember once when Falcon prevented a security breach occurred because someone clicked on a phishing link, and their credential was compromised. We used threat tracking to isolate the device from networks. 

I have used Falcon for two years.

I rate Falcon nine out of 10 for stability. 

I rate Falcon eight out of 10 for scalability. 

I rate CrowdStrike Falcon nine out of 10. 

We use CrowdStrike Falcon as an XDR to replace our old antivirus solution.

We implemented CrowdStrike Falcon for better visibility into our environment and easy online access to the policies.

CrowdStrike Falcon's cybersecurity background allows for better integration with other tools.

The threat intelligence is the most valuable feature.

The support for different OS versions needs improvement because sometimes due to business conditions, updating our OS is impossible. For example, I have a production environment connected to the PNC that runs Windows XP on computers that CrowdStrike Falcon does not support.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for six years.

CrowdStrike Falcon is stable.

CrowdStrike Falcon has been able to scale to our needs with no issues.

The initial deployment was straightforward. The deployment took one day to complete. Ten people were involved in the deployment.

The implementation was completed in-house.

CrowdStrike Falcon's price is good. I am looking for other partners and compared to Microsoft Defender and other vendors the price is lower.

I would rate CrowdStrike Falcon a then out of ten.

Before purchasing CrowdStrike Falcon I suggest checking the policies, particularly those regarding internet connections, and conducting a proof of concept.

We primarily use this solution for AV, next-gen AV, EDR or XDR.

I find most of the features to be very generic.

The solution is very good but tighter integration around XDR could be included. There are a lot of open integrations, but they are external factors that cause dependencies on the integrator, not really on CrowdStrike, so it's a bit of a challenge as there is no comprehensive solution. Additionally, the solution is dependent on Windows technical support.

We have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable, but price and support are a bit of a challenge.

We previously used different solutions, and the primary differentiating factor was marketing.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The price is high in comparison to similar brands.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. I advise new users first to understand their use case, its vulnerability and its importance.