Cylance, a Blackberry company since the early 2019 acquisition, developed their flagship business antivirus and endpoint protection software in CylancePROTECT, featured in business and home editions boasting artificial intelligence guided protection. BlackBerry Protect is a post-acquisition evolution of CylanceProtect.
N/A
Norton 360
Score 7.0 out of 10
N/A
The Norton products, including Norton 360, Norton Antivirus, and Norton Security, are consumer antivirus and privacy protection products. Features include password management, VPN, dark web and credit monitoring for individuals, and cloud backup for PCs.
$59.99
per year
Pricing
BlackBerry Protect (CylancePROTECT)
Norton 360
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Norton AntiVirus
$59.99
per year
Norton 360 Standard
$94.99
per year 3 PCs, Macs, tablets, or phones
Norton 360 Deluxe
$119.99
per year 5 PCs, Macs, tablets, or phones
Norton 360 with LifeLock Select Plus
$189.99
per year 10 PCs, Macs, tablets, or phones
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
BlackBerry Protect (CylancePROTECT)
Norton 360
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
1st year discounts available.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
BlackBerry Protect (CylancePROTECT)
Norton 360
Considered Both Products
BlackBerry Protect (CylancePROTECT)
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose BlackBerry Protect (CylancePROTECT)
At the time we were looking to upgrade to the Blackberry version, we already had the Dell branded version of Cylance installed on our machines and we really liked it. Once we got the pricing comparison between Carbon Black and Blackberry we made the decision to stick with …
We were on Sophos Anti-Virus and moved to CylancePROTECT. It was a no competition as Sophos was a very resource-intensive product that would slow our systems down when it scanned. CylancePROTECT gave us the ability to look at how the files reacted which allows for a faster …
I have compared CylancePROTECT against several other traditional AV's in a lab environment with some serious new malware and ransomware. Cylance was my clear choice and remain proud of that decision, after 2.5 years. I managed to get 4 out of 4 ransomware infections past in my …
Once you see a road show with Cylance and watch how Cylance is able to block ten out of ten or nine out of ten threats live vs SEP which stops six or seven out of ten, you're sold. Cylance has crushed all the competition in these events. Disconnect the competition from any …
CylancePROTECT blocked all known threats (including zero-day ransomware executables) immediately. ESET detected the "out in the wild" known malicious executables, but the moment we modified those executables or loaded freshly created ransomware files, ESET failed spectacularly …
Since there are no signatures, it learns your environment and the software running on it. Its better to manage/set up than the Symantec EndPoint Protection we had before.
Cylance, I believe is the only one that uses the predict and prevent execution of advanced threats and malware at the endpoint. Cylance is by far a superior product.
Cylance had a lower CPU consumption than it's competitors allowing us to improve client performance especially on older hardware and without the need to schedule background scans it has ensured staff can work optimally.
Cylance was steps ahead of these other competitors with the technology they use. Yes, it was a bit more pricey than the others but we found it to be worth the extra cost because we wanted to make sure we would be the most protected we could be. Some of the others were not easy …
Password manager is great and it is a life saver as I hardly remember passwords. Symantex Endpoint protection was used by my organization and it was silent, great except that system used to halt when the scan was happening
Updates are better in Norton. Support is always greater with Norton. The interfaces are totally different and it is so easy to use Norton. Th cost of renewal is also better in Norton compared to McAfee data center security suite.
I actually have been victimized avast at no cost and it slowed down my entire laptop and it hangs every time I scan the system for threats. This frustration created Pine Tree State to switch to Norton.
I have found Norton doesn’t slow down a computer as Avast antivirus has done. Avast is also not so much pocket-friendly as compared to the Norton, which is available at a very reasonable price which is highly affordable for me. The basic reason to Choose Norton on any other …
It is the most recommended antivirus because it is the most virus detected and eliminated with a very reliable heuristic, great protection guaranteed, great spindle facility, real-time protection against viruses, eliminates everything easily, is easy to install and easy to …
Using a hosted model, we know we are always getting the best core cybersecurity, but for the endpoints, we don't need something as complex as FireEye, and we wanted more than Lookout was able to provide. Lookout was terrific, and it came already installed with many of our …
We liked the pricing of Norton better. Also, it was more reliable in finding suspicious attachments and phishing emails than Avast was. Lastly, it ran better on our machines. The feedback we got from our pilot testing batch was very positive and that is what made us take the …
I prefer Norton but I dont think there is a huge difference in quality between the two. Kaspersky has some extra features that are nice (but not must haves) and the price difference is negligible.
User-friendly interface (it's not just AV and users who were interacting with the product), performance, resource usage (most of the computers were not very fresh and that factor was very critical), efficiency, it shouldn't be just sitting on a PC - it should protect it, what …
Our go to product is Webroot. Unlike Norton Internet Security it is built for MSP's that need multi-tenancy options. Webroot also does not need to be installed on a server (like NIS) and it uses much fewer resources on the endpoints. Norton is licensed annually, Webroot is …
Other security products have their own strengths and weaknesses but Norton Internet Security does very well in terms of performance and working with Android OS devices. While past versions were known to be performance hogs, today's incarnation of the security program is well …
Norton 360 has a better detection rate as well as remediation rate than the others I have used. It also does not affect the computer resources if configured properly. It provides an all in one solution that is easy to configure for the novice user and provides easy to review …
If I had to recommend an endpoint AV solution, [BlackBerry Protect (CylancePROTECT)] would be on the list...in fact at the top of the current list. It is a cost effective solution. When we did the bakeoff in our selection we built 3 generic W10 PCs. We located a Malware repository on the internet and downloaded a package of 100. The first solution stopped 80% from installing, the second stopped 100%, [BlackBerry (CylancePROTECT)] would not let the package download! Winner winner chicken dinner :)
For a stand-alone business this should do the trick, but if using across multiple clients (multi-tenancy not an option). Default settings within the program will cause performance issues if not tweaked, meaning someone with networking experience may be necessary. Not ideal for MSP's unless they only have a few clients, as the manageability must be done within "the walls" of each company.
Cylance uses AI Math-Model algorithms/machine-learning solutions, compared to other solutions which use signature-based solutions.
The Cylance client is very light-weight and is not as resource hungry.
The blocking capability is completely customizable through policies. Macro blocking, script blocking, and device blocking (USB, CDROM, iPhone, Android, etc.) can all be customized per organization needs.
Management interface is easy to use. The dashboard gives administrators a quick glance at threat events, threat protection, and device protection. Reports give you quick glances at infections, stale versions, and computers that have been offline for a period of time. Updates are easy to roll out in a tiered fashion to properly test.
Customer support is great! You can open up a ticket within the management portal and get help within a few hours. Most of the support is over email unless it is complicated, then they will do a remote session.
It would be great if there was a way for an administrator to make a file as safe from the end user device when a false positive has occurred (which is rare). At present and administrator has to log into the web console, create an exception and then wait 60-120 seconds for this to be effective on the end user device, still great, but this can be frustrating for users that are urgently trying to use the file.
Executive reporting could be better. Just a single page dashboard report that could be included in other monthly reporting.
I did renew it before because support is great and cost is great. I believe that Norton has a very long experience in what they do and they are doing a great job with all the updates they provide and the work they are doing. Moreover Norton is going in the right direction for sure.
User interface is excellent. The green tickmark in the tray ensuring everything is undercontrol is so satisfying. I have turned on Auto updates so, I am not bothered about unnecessary download updates popup
I have only used CylancePROTECT support one time and they were very fast and responsive with the answers that solved my issue. That is the only reason I gave them a 7 as I have only had one interaction with them.
At the time we were looking to upgrade to the Blackberry version, we already had the Dell branded version of Cylance installed on our machines and we really liked it. Once we got the pricing comparison between Carbon Black and Blackberry we made the decision to stick with Cylance since we knew it was proven to work well in our environment with some of our unique software.
User-friendly interface (it's not just AV and users who were interacting with the product), performance, resource usage (most of the computers were not very fresh and that factor was very critical), efficiency, it shouldn't be just sitting on a PC - it should protect it, what was perfectly done with that product.
Poor performance against Spyware and other threats despite claiming to act against them (recognizes very few and eliminates less) It is limited to viruses.
Regular blocking of incoming scripts (in front of other antivirus)
Little or almost no compatibility with the Windows XP Firewall, but they are involved.