The biggest structural difference I've found is that Orion is built around investigation and visibility first, where DG is built around rules and endpoint enforcement first. Discovery gives me a graph of where our data actually flows — sources on the left, destinations on the right, thickness = volume — so I can literally see "AI tools and personal email are eating our data" at a glance before I write a single policy. DG never gave me that macro picture; I found out what was happening by reading alerts one at a time. The AI layer is the second real win for me, and it's threaded through everything rather than bolted on. I can build a policy by typing "block PII uploads to Dropbox" and it fills the whole wizard. I can query Discovery in plain English. Detections come with an AI Risk Score (0–10) broken into Context / Content / Entities / Anomaly, plus an AI Insights narrative explaining why it fired — and I can ask it follow-up questions. For my team's day-to-day triage burden coming off DG, that's the difference between reading raw event logs and getting a pre-written incident summary. Third: Simulate before enabling. I can point a draft policy at historical data and see the blast radius before I turn it on. That alone has de-risked a lot of our Fortra-to-Orion cutover, because I can validate that a migrated rule matches the same traffic before it starts blocking people. Fourth, noise control is a first-class feature here, not an afterthought — detections cluster related traces into one incident, there's a single sensitivity slider (Balanced by default), and Accept Risk lets me create time-boxed exceptions instead of permanently poking holes. Coming from a system I found too cumbersome, this is exactly the streamlining I was after. And fifth, mitigation lives in the console: I can Notify the manager/actor, Revoke Access on external shares, and Delete File through CrowdStrike, all without leaving the detection. DG typically punted me to other tools for response.