FireEye Detection On Demand vs Sasa Software GateScanner Integration Server: Side-by-Side Comparison (2026)

FireEye Detection On Demand

Security teams needing fast, authoritative malware verdicts on suspicious files and URLs should run them through FireEye Detection On Demand before deciding whether to block or investigate further. The cloud API processes submissions through FireEye's actual execution engine rather than signature matching alone, giving you analysis depth typically reserved for expensive incident response retainers. Skip this if your team lacks API integration bandwidth or needs behavioral analysis of binaries already running on endpoints; Detection On Demand is triage and verification, not continuous monitoring.

Sasa Software GateScanner Integration Server

Mid-market and enterprise teams handling high-volume file intake across email, web, and APIs should pick GateScanner Integration Server for its native ICAP and API support, which lets you drop it inline without rearchitecting your gateway stack. The Active-Active load balancing with zero-downtime scaling and support for hundreds of file types including executables means you won't outgrow it as your sanitization volume climbs. Skip this if you need threat intelligence feeds or behavioral detonation; GateScanner does disarm-and-reconstruct only, prioritizing data integrity over detection, which is exactly the right tradeoff for organizations that treat file sanitization as a deterministic control rather than a threat hunting tool.