Cofense PhishMe is a cyber threat and phishing simulator meant to be of use in training employees to be wary against threats and also to gain information about general employee threat knowledge and preparedness. A free trial is available for small business.
N/A
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (formerly Microsoft Defender ATP) is a holistic, cloud delivered endpoint security solution that includes risk-based vulnerability management and assessment, attack surface reduction, behavioral based and cloud-powered next generation protection, endpoint detection and response (EDR), automatic investigation and remediation, managed hunting services, rich APIs, and unified security management.
PhishMe is a market leader in terms of phishing simulation solutions. The customization appears unmatched when compared with competitors and the support we have experienced from Cofense has been excellent. Phish me offers lots of realistic templates which are updated regularly …
Cofense phishing simulation product is one of the best security awareness solutions that our security team has tested. The product is feature-rich and easy to navigate. Awareness templates are numerous to select from and in multiple languages, which is a big plus. Campaign …
Cofense PhishMe was the first choice for us as the user interface as well as their bundle package with Cofense Triage and Vision has helped the organisation to alleviate the overall security awareness posture. The other vendors did not provide a vast range of phishing scenarios …
Cofense PhishMe is price competitive and provides lots of value. We are also utilizing Cofense's other products such as Triage, Vision, and Report PhishMe. We are seeing lots of value from these products and hopefully, your company will see some value also. Support also is …
I have not used similar kinds of products previously. So this is hard for me to compare anyone here. But as long as I used PhishMe I loved it. The ease of use, the neat designs, and distinct tabs help reduce the clutter. The learning curve to get comfortable with the tool is …
Cofense provides more templates. We couple the reporter service with the Triage product & managed triage service. Cofense's support is better and more engaged. We utilized Wombat before acquisition.
Cofense is more comprehensive in its offerings given that the field of email security and email-related staff awareness is their focus area, while for Cymulate, it is only a component of testing and nothing else. Hence, it was quite beneficial to use Cofense in that regard.
Cofense was selected as a vendor before I was in this role. Another vendor was evaluated for additional security awareness training but not to replace the Cofense PhishMe program. We also looked at Ninjio to supplement our phishing education program.
We chose PhishMe due to its ease of use and integration. The many different scenarios available and the price point were the main selling points vs the competitors.
For reporter, we've used GoSecure IDR. KnowBe4 is probably the biggest paid competitor I've seen and tried a demo.
For opensource, things like GoPhish or the Social Engineering Toolkit within Kali Linux aren't bad. Both require more effort, so you either pay Cofense for ease of …
We haven't used another provider. However, we used our internal phishing simulation solution prior to contracting Cofense. The internal solution gives you more flexibility (you can send emails to any domain and can impersonate any company) but you'd be missing the Reporter …
Our previously used product was SANS ACLP. This wasn't an altogether horrible product and for the time we used it the purpose for its use was served. We had multiple issues though with how this product delivered emails, captured clicks, and generated reporting once the …
We closely looked at KnowBe4's platform as well when it came time to renew. We chose to continue with Cofense because we already had over a year's worth of data in the platform that we would lose by switching vendors.
I have not used any other products that do the same thing as PhishMe. I was not the decision maker in deploying PhishMe so I can not comment as to why we chose it or any other similar competitors in the field. PhishMe works well for what we use it for.
Cofense PhishMe is a very usable and customizable suite and compared to a previous product, it's hard to go back. After using [Cofense] PhishMe, I don't want to look for another product since the features are rich and the usability is relatively straightforward. Information and …
We have not used anything else other than Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. Maybe we've used other antivirus software like Sophos and things like that. They're just not all encompassing and that's why we moved to use this product.
I have been working with customers that they are transitioning from Sentinel One, CrowdStrike to Defender for Endpoint, right? So I think it's because they see the value in the product and also they see how much they can save in terms of the cost for companies because they …
We previously used CrowdStrike on our servers. However, the seamless integration of Microsoft Defender (MD) with XDR and the entire Microsoft ecosystem led us to choose Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (MDE).
What we love more about this product is the way this pro gets integrated into the other family of solutions, especially Defender for Identity or the XDR solutions. We think that the market, the customers are full of unattended consults coming out from different vendors and that …
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is more advantageous in our windows heavy infrastructure and it was unparalled in the ease of integration with windows endpoints. Security breaches, system crashes and outages with other competitors like Crowdstrike made it easier for us to go …
CrowdStrike Falcon is also a good solution for endpoint protection which offer EDR Soultion, threat hunting and AI driven threat protection. Sophos Intercept X combines next-gen antivirus with advanced EDR capabilities with its deep learning technology, exploit prevention, and …
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is unique for its effortless deployment into the Microsoft ecosystem, where it taps the broadest set of threat intelligence from more than 1.5 billion endpoints. Its state-of-the-art AI-powered automated investigation and remediation minimize …
We started onboarding macOS devices on jamf and started managing it. Because Defender for Endpoint is not working as expected for and compared to price and functionality we are switching from it.
CrowdStrike and SentinelOne. CrowdStrike, you have to deploy it, but it's the defender, it's already baked into the operating system. Same thing with SentinelOne.
I'm not familiar. It's just been one year plus that I started using, so I've just started using Defender, so I really don't know how to compare it with others.
I would say at the end all they are doing the same, but with the benefit that we don't need to install anything. So it's just kind of enabling and then the functionality is available, so other products need to be installed, which is not necessary with the defend
We use Defender in the cloud. We are currently using Defender in the cloud and also evaluating the XDR solution for programmatic. It's just arguments, the defense in depth. You have Defender Endpoint and then you have what you have in the cloud as well, so it's just augmenting …
Before using Defender for Endpoint, we basically had the starter version of the Microsoft product, which comes prebuilt into the system. We had them using in the initial run, but then what usually happened was the employees started disabling it, and that usually made, we guys …
I am a big fan of Tanium actually, so I think it is good. Tanium seemed like it was maybe a little bit easier, but maybe the capability was lacking. Maybe that's the reason why it seems like Defender for Endpoint might be a little harder to understand. There might just be more …
CrowdStrike Falcon, and Sentinel One are other big ones that we use a bit. Cisco Secure Endpoint we've evaluated as well. Cisco Secure endpoint capability-wise doesn't match up to Defender, SentinelOne, and CrowdStrike both do, but the cost profiles are a bit higher. So most of …
I would say not to name specific company names, because I'm a partner with one of them and that's the account that I work with. But I use some competing solutions that I would say are pretty heavy from an overhead perspective with the agent that has to be installed in the …
It's a very apt tool for the scenario where there are multiple users and verticals in an organisation. Phishing Campaigns and recording their response actions is quite easier through this tool. Not suitable for a small organization (less than 500) that can maybe use some open tools or self-made emails for campaigns.
Because of its integration with Windows, it is very easy to deploy and manage. Any IT department should be able to leverage the software and interface. The admin portal provides weighted recommendations that comprise the Secure Store, offering admins, security teams, and business owners valuable insights into their security footprint without requiring a strong security background. The software would be ideal for small and mid-sized businesses that cannot dedicate resources to security. Larger enterprises would also benefit, but may require the enhanced license.
One, it's crazy lightweight, so compared to some of the competitors that we also have used with our security services, it's really lightweight and so I don't have a lot of overhead on the system that it's running on.
Many of the URLs come in with an unknown reputation and although it may be challenging from threat intel feeds, somehow allowing a more in-depth analysis of the URL can provide better/quicker decision making or validation.
Adjustable widgets for reporting, although the provided are already built very well.
Provide in-house templates or summaries of actionable items, such as a single brief on a major phish.
So the fact that Defender for Endpoint still works with signatures is actually, I don't know, a little difficult for us because, I mean, since Microsoft trusts those signatures, you can easily inject code. And we've done it many times. To show that you can inject code through vulnerabilities like CV 2013, 99, and 33 but still keep the signature. So because of the trust of those signatures, the malware just kind of slides into the environment without Defender knowing. That's the first part. The second part is that the behavioral analysis is not precisely its Prime. It's not Defender's best capability for endpoints. So, Defender does not identify all behaviors considered by other EDRs in the market.
Microsoft Defender is closely catching -up in market with existing competitors they have added DLP endpoint & DLP Network and Cloud DLP solution last year with OCR capabilities. I would say Microsoft Defender is not legacy Vendor in end point security, the need to learn from other vendors in market and focus on new XDR technologies, which is going to be new battle for all vendors
Its built with UX in mind and is aimed at non-tech people, to ensure that almost everyone can run the campaign. But if we go deeper - sometimes you will need an HTML editor or support in order to figure out some advanced edits you might want to add in your scenarios.
Because in terms of the usability is easy to understand, it's easy to manage, obviously you need to have specific skills to do that, but I would say that even the console and the product is walking through the flow that you are looking for on this console.
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint chugs along just fine no matter what we throw at it and what systems it's running on. It doesn't take up a lot of resources either, so that's welcomed.
I have not had to use their support for pretty much anything. The software works well, and is very intuitive. I would imagine their support would be rather basic as there is not too much that can go wrong with a report phishing button, and if it were I would probably consider a different software.
Overall support is really good for this product. Since it's a Microsoft product, you will get good support from a number of different resources, including knowledgebase articles on the web, support from Microsoft technicians, and documentation (which tends to very thorough). Also, there is a vast user support community for this product, so user support forums would also be another valuable channel to get help if needed. I don't envision too many people will have issues/problems with the product, as it tends to run good overall.
Deployment was handled by our team here and everything went pretty smoothly. We did have a few hiccups in our test group, but that only took a bit to get ironed out.
PhishMe is a market leader in terms of phishing simulation solutions. The customization appears unmatched when compared with competitors and the support we have experienced from Cofense has been excellent. Phish me offers lots of realistic templates which are updated regularly which is far ahead of other solutions. Phish me also provides lots of detailed statistics as well as high-level numbers which are really useful for some clients who want details, and others who only want high-level overviews.
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint offers strong integration with Microsoft 365 and Azure services, which provide a unified security experience. While McAfee Trellix is known for solid antivirus, Microsoft Defender excels in integration in the ecosystem.
From a normal user's perspective, it's an easy and fast, very very user-friendly phishing email reporting structure. No need to remember any email address, no need for sophisticated handling of malicious emails while sending/ reporting. Just a click and it is done.
From the admin and analyst point of view: Easy and clutter-free triaging pane, IOC reputation check facility, Rules and Recipes section for automation and focused triaging, Notification to the reporter based on the triaging done is really a helpful feedback loop.
Overall: Simple to handle, less learning curve, well managed, less administration time, fewer issues, less maintenance time.
