Compare solutions
Field Effect vs.
the competition
Whether you’re weighing MDR vendors or legacy tools, discover why Field Effect delivers complete protection without the complexity.
Compare security vendors
Explore how leading MDRs and tools compare across performance, protection, and value.
Field Effect vs. Arctic Wolf
Arctic Wolf's complex, siloed tools create alert fatigue and require costly add-ons to achieve protection, raising total cost of ownership.
Compare
Field Effect vs. Cynet
Cynet's technology is difficult to configure and manage, with complex alerts and high endpoint resource usage that impacts performance.
Compare
Field Effect vs. Huntress
Reactive, siloed protection with no ability to block threats and relies on third-party tools to fill the gaps—adding complexity and cost.
Compare
Field Effect vs. Kaseya
Kaseya's minimally integrated technology stack is cumbersome to configure, with poor support, long-term contracts, and hidden upsells.
Compare
Field Effect vs. SentinelOne
SentinelOne's noisy, complex alerts are built for large teams, with expensive upsells that put strong cybersecurity out of reach for SMEs.
Compare
Compare security solutions
Explore how Field Effect stacks up against traditional tools like EDR, SIEM, and competing MDRs.
vs EDR
EDR’s endpoint-only focus, high alert volume, and lack of managed support make it a risky bet for organizations needing full protection beyond devices.
Compare
vs MDR
Other MDR solutions tend to treat tools, alerts, and remediations as separate silos—patching them together in an attempt to achieve full coverage.
Compare
vs SIEM
SIEMs demand heavy tuning, alert triage, and added SOC investment—turning security into a full-time burden.
Compare
