Users considered LinkedIn Recruiter, Indeed, and ZipRecruiter prior to using Entelo. They sought better candidate sourcing, more comprehensive data, and improved automation features. LinkedIn Recruiter was popular for its extensive network but lacked automation benefits. Indeed and ZipRecruiter were appreciated for wide reach but fell short in specific targeting and sophisticated analytics.
Users considered GitLab and Jenkins before choosing Framework due to its user-friendly interface, seamless integration with existing workflows, and advanced customization options. Some also explored CircleCI but found Framework's customer support and community resources more helpful. Additionally, Microsoft's Azure DevOps was evaluated, but it lacked the flexibility and ease of deployment provided by Framework.
AI Squared's team is praised for professionalism, efficiency, reliability, tailored support, and strong communication, ensuring high user satisfaction.
Users chose AI Squared for its customization, intuitive interface, superior integration, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility over DataRobot, H2O.ai, and SAS.
Many users considered alternatives like TensorFlow, PyTorch, and IBM Watson before choosing AI Squared. Users highlighted that AI Squared provided easier integration, better support, and more cost-effective options. They found the platform to be more intuitive and user-friendly, which facilitated quicker deployment. The robust performance, alongside the flexible customization offered by AI Squared, was frequently a deciding factor. Several mentions praised AI Squared for its scalability and comprehensive features compared to others.
Users previously utilized various platforms and tools, including Google Cloud, AWS, IBM Watson, DataRobot, Python scripts, and H20.ai, before Kortical.
Kortical's implementation team is praised for professionalism, responsiveness, expertise, and exceptional support, ensuring seamless integration and customization.
Users preferred Kortical over H2O.ai, DataRobot, and Amazon SageMaker for its user-friendliness, affordability, and effective machine learning automation.
Many users considered tools like DataRobot, H2O.ai, and Google's AutoML before choosing Kortical due to its superior ease of use, adaptability, and pricing. Kortical's automation and efficiency in model deployment were key deciding factors, as well as its ability to handle complex datasets with minimal manual intervention. Some were also attracted by Kortical's customizability and intuitive interface, which streamlined their workflows better than alternatives.
Bluebeak's implementation team is professional, reliable, and provides personalized, proactive, and efficient support, ensuring a seamless onboarding experience.
Users considered Slack, Trello, Asana, and Monday.com before opting for Bluebeak. Bluebeak was preferred due to its ease of use, comprehensive features, customizable options, and affordability. Unlike other platforms, Bluebeak provided seamless integration with existing tools and better customer support. Users appreciated its intuitive interface, making task management and team collaboration more efficient. Bluebeak's scalability and flexibility also stood out, catering to both small teams and larger organizations.
Users considered Power BI for its robust analytics, Tableau for its visualization capabilities, and Google Data Studio for its integration with other Google services. They found Power BI complex, Tableau expensive, and Google Data Studio lacking in advanced features. Iris stood out for its user-friendly interface, affordability, and comprehensive functionality, making it a preferred choice despite exploring other popular tools.
<p>E&Y Compliance Consulting's implementation team is praised for expertise, efficiency, tailored solutions, seamless integration, and strong client support.</p>
<p>Users chose E&Y Compliance Consulting for its expertise, customized services, cost-effectiveness, and strong industry reputation over alternatives.</p>
<p>Many users considered Deloitte and PwC but opted for E&Y Compliance Consulting due to its superior customization and ease of integration. KPMG was another contender, yet users found E&Y Compliance Consulting’s user-friendly interface and comprehensive support more appealing. Some also evaluated BDO but appreciated E&Y Compliance Consulting’s advanced features and timely updates.</p>
Accenture Compliance Consulting's implementation team is praised for expertise, professionalism, prompt responses, clear guidance, problem-solving skills, and efficient communication.
Users considered Deloitte, KPMG, and PwC before choosing Accenture Compliance Consulting. Deloitte was seen as too costly, KPMG lacked specialized expertise, and PwC's communication was slow. Accenture offered a balanced approach with knowledgeable consultants, timely responses, and competitive pricing, making it an ideal choice for their compliance requirements.
KPMG Compliance Consulting's team is professional, knowledgeable, and reliable, providing tailored, efficient, and supportive service for a positive client experience.
Users considered Deloitte, EY, and PwC before choosing KPMG Compliance Consulting. Deloitte was praised for its innovation but lacked industry-specific expertise. EY was noted for strong advisory services but high costs deterred some. PwC had a robust global network but didn't meet specific regulatory requirements as effectively as KPMG Compliance Consulting. Affordability, specialized knowledge, and comprehensive support led users to prefer KPMG Compliance Consulting.
<p>Many companies transitioned from McKinsey, PwC, KPMG, Ernst & Young, local boutiques, and Boston Consulting Group to Deloitte Compliance Consulting.</p>
The Deloitte Compliance Consulting implementation team is praised for their expertise, effective communication, prompt support, and adaptability to client needs.
<p>Users explored PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young for compliance services. PricewaterhouseCoopers was considered for its robust risk management tools, while Ernst & Young attracted attention due to its strong reputation in audit services. Deloitte Compliance Consulting was ultimately chosen for its comprehensive regulatory expertise, user-friendly interface, and proven track record in delivering effective compliance strategies.</p>
PWC Compliance Consulting's implementation team is praised for its expertise, responsiveness, professionalism, and efficient handling of complex issues.
Users considered Deloitte, KPMG, and EY before choosing PWC Compliance Consulting. They cited PWC’s comprehensive service offerings, strong industry reputation, and tailored compliance solutions as decisive factors. Additionally, they mentioned positive past experiences, better integration with existing systems, and cost-effectiveness compared to competitors.
Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management's team is praised for their expertise, responsive support, and commitment to successful deployment and client satisfaction.
Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management outperformed Symantec, Forcepoint, and Proofpoint in integration, capabilities, user interface, detection, and compliance.
Many users considered Varonis DatAdvantage for its robust data tracking, Forcepoint DLP for advanced content inspection, and McAfee Insider Threat Management due to existing McAfee infrastructure. However, users found Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management's seamless integration with existing Microsoft 365 tools, ease of use, and comprehensive features particularly suitable.
Users considered AWS Auto Scaling, Kubernetes, and Google Cloud. AWS Auto Scaling was set aside due to its complexity. Kubernetes was seen as too difficult to manage without specialized skills. Google Cloud was not chosen because of higher costs. Zesty was preferred for its simplicity, ease of integration, and cost-effectiveness.
The ConnectWise Risk Assessment implementation team is praised for efficiency, expertise, responsiveness, and invaluable support in addressing client needs.
Users evaluated SolarWinds Risk Intelligence and Rapid7 Insight before choosing ConnectWise Risk Assessment. They noted ease of use, comprehensive analysis, and cost-effectiveness as key reasons for selecting ConnectWise Risk Assessment over these alternatives. They also highlighted the integration capabilities and scalability of ConnectWise Risk Assessment, which better aligned with their requirements. SolarWinds and Rapid7 were considered less intuitive and more expensive in comparison.
Organizations implemented CrowdStrike Falcon Complete MDR with varied team sizes, using internal specialists, external support, or CrowdStrike’s assistance.
<p>Users selected CrowdStrike Falcon Complete MDR for its advanced features, compatibility, scalability, and managed detection, after considering other solutions.</p>
<p>Users considered alternatives such as Carbon Black, Cybereason, Trend Micro, Sophos, FireEye, Microsoft Defender, McAfee, and Symantec. They highlighted CrowdStrike's advanced features, scalability, compatibility, superior support, and effectiveness. Some users noted the limitations or lack of certain features in the alternatives. CrowdStrike’s cloud option, managed detection, and threat hunting were particularly valued despite its higher cost compared to competitors.</p>
The Paññã implementation team is praised for their efficiency, expertise, prompt responses, clear communication, and professional, supportive approach.
Before choosing Paññã, users explored Salesforce IQ for its CRM capabilities, HubSpot for its marketing automation, and Asana for project management. Some considered Trello due to ease of use, while others evaluated Microsoft Office 365 for familiarity and integration. Cost-effectiveness and feature range often led them to select Paññã.
StandardFusion GRC's professional implementation team is highly praised for their efficiency, responsiveness, and expertise in ensuring smooth onboarding and customization.
Users preferred StandardFusion GRC for its user-friendly interface, customizable features, competitive pricing, and efficient compliance process integration.
Users considered alternatives like RSA Archer and MetricStream due to their comprehensive risk management features. RSA Archer was known for its customization options, while MetricStream offered robust compliance tools. They chose StandardFusion GRC because it provided a more user-friendly interface, quicker implementation time, and better customer support, which met their specific requirements. Additionally, its cost-effectiveness and straightforward integration with existing systems made it stand out.
Mellanox Switches' team is praised for technical expertise, effective issue resolution, professionalism, and proactive, tailored solutions with thorough training.
Users considered Cisco, Juniper, and Arista before selecting Mellanox Switches. Cisco was evaluated for its extensive support and features. Juniper was noted for its reliability and network performance. Arista was chosen for its software-defined networking capabilities and automation. Mellanox Switches were ultimately preferred for their high performance, competitive pricing, and superior integration with existing systems. Users appreciated the seamless integration and advanced features offered by Mellanox Switches.
Users evaluated AWS, Google Cloud GPU solutions, and AMD options due to cost-effectiveness and performance. AWS and Google Cloud were attractive for scalability and ease of integration, while AMD options were considered for their competitive pricing. NVIDIA DGX Systems were chosen mainly for superior AI processing capabilities and better support for machine learning frameworks, which surpassed the alternatives.
NVIDIA Tesla's implementation team is praised for expertise, efficiency, clear communication, and tailored, prompt solutions, enhancing user satisfaction.
Many considered Google TPU for its integration with cloud services, AMD GPUs due to cost-effectiveness, and Intel Xeon for CPU-based tasks. They found that NVIDIA Tesla provided superior performance, compatibility with machine learning frameworks, and excellent support. Some also looked into Microsoft Azure but chose NVIDIA Tesla for its reliability and industry's high regard.
Users evaluated Ceph for its open-source flexibility, MinIO for high performance, and Cloudian HyperStore for enterprise-grade features. Scality's compatibility with different storage systems was also noted. SwiftStack's scalability, ease of deployment, and lower costs led users to choose it over the others.
Users explored AWS WAF, Cloudflare, and Imperva but chose Wallarm NG WAF due to its extensive API security capabilities, ease of integration, and superior attack detection rates. They valued its automated threat verification and ability to adapt to diverse environments. Points like scalability, support for modern web frameworks, and detailed analytics were highlighted, providing a comprehensive security approach that was not matched by other options considered.
Users switched to Fusion Framework from various tools due to better integration, user-friendliness, and scalability compared to Onspring and RiskWatch.
Fusion Framework's implementation team is praised for professionalism, efficiency, responsiveness, effective training, and a smooth transition enhancing user confidence.
Users considered Archer and Resolver due to their risk management features. RSA Archer's complexity and cost were drawbacks, while Resolver's user interface was less intuitive. Some looked at GRC tools like MetricStream but found them less flexible. Fusion Framework was favored for its customizable platform and ease of use over other risk management tools. Users appreciated Fusion Framework for its efficient integration capabilities compared to other systems.
Guardz's implementation team is knowledgeable, responsive, and professional, ensuring smooth onboarding, quick issue resolution, and efficient platform integration.
Users preferred Guardz over McAfee, Symantec, and Kaspersky for its superior interface, cost-effectiveness, protection, support, and ease of integration.
Users explored options such as Bitdefender, Norton, and Avast before opting for Guardz. They appreciated Guardz for its comprehensive features, user-friendly interface, and exceptional customer support. Unlike others, Guardz provided a seamless experience with advanced security measures and regular updates.
<p>Users evaluated several options such as SentinelOne, CarbonBlack, CrowdStrike, Sophos, Darktrace, McAfee, Palo Alto, Cortex, VMware, Trend Micro, Cylance, Symantec, Perception Point, Extra Hop, Microsoft. Cynet stood out due to its comprehensive functionality, integrated approach, CyOps support, ease of use, minimal resource demand, transparency of information, effective endpoints protection, and proactive mitigation capabilities. Consultants and various organizations highlighted Cynet's competitiveness, efficiency, and high scores in crucial parameters like quality, pricing, and deployment ease.</p>
Users chose Holm Security for its intuitiveness, comprehensive coverage, cost-effectiveness, deployment ease, and seamless integration over other security tools.