We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and CylancePROTECT based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The stability is very good."
"The product itself is pretty reliable. The security features that it has make it reliable."
"Secure Endpoint has decreased our time to remediate by providing the tools and the integrations we need so we can quickly look across our entire network, look for those threats, and actually make good decisions."
"It is extensive in terms of providing visibility and insights into threats. It allows for research into a threat, and you can chart your progress on how you're resolving it."
"There are several valuable features including strong prevention and exceptional reporting capabilities."
"The VPN is most valuable. It's the best thing in the market today. We can use two-factor authentication with another platform, and we can authenticate with two-factor."
"It is a very stable program."
"If somebody has been compromised, the question always is: How has it affected other devices in the network? Cisco AMP gives you a very neat view of that."
"The product's initial setup phase was very simple."
"I rate the tool a ten out of ten when it comes to the ease of use or management part."
"We are quite security-focused. Blackberry Protect as an endpoint solution for our service really delivers what we are expecting."
"The solution is easy to deploy."
"It secures different entry points into the network."
"It is a good endpoint solution. It is very easy to manage and detect the threat immediately. It will take the necessary actions."
"The solution is stable."
"It provides good insight into the programs, applications, or websites that may need attention."
"Even if an endpoint loses connection to the Internet, I know that endpoint is protected against 99.99% of the threats in the wild today."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"It does not include encryption and decryption of local file shares."
"One of the things that Cisco Secure Endpoint really needs is that it's not just Secure Endpoint, it's a point product, and I think we really need to move into solution-based selling, designing, and architecting. So that we're not worried about putting things on endpoints and selling 'x' amount of endpoints, but to provide a solution that covers all of the remote access and sell them as solutions that cover multiple things."
"I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."
"The technical support is very slow."
"The Linux agent is a simple offline classic agent, and it doesn't support Secure Boot, which is important to have on a Linux machine. The Linux agent has conflicts with other solutions, including the Exploit Prevention system found in Windows servers. We didn't find a fix during troubleshooting, and Cisco couldn't offer one either. Eventually, we had to shut down the Exploit Prevention system. We didn't like that as we always want a solution that can fit smoothly into the setup without causing problems, especially where security is concerned. The tool also caused CPU spikes on our production machine, and we were seriously considering moving to another product."
"Cisco is good in terms of threat intelligence plus machine learning-based solutions, but we feel Cisco is lagging behind in using artificial intelligence in its systems."
"I would like them to add whatever makes filtering more advanced in scanning and blocking for malware in emails."
"The room for improvement would be on event notifications. I have mine tuned fairly well. I do feel that if you subscribe to all the event notification types out-of-the-box, or don't really go through and take the time to filter out events, the notifications can become overwhelming with information. Sometimes, when you're overwhelmed with information, you just say, "I'm not going to look at anything because I'm receiving so much." I recommend the vendor come up with a white paper on the best practices for event notifications."
"I would say one thing that they might need to bring in is protection for mobile devices."
"The security scripting needs improvement. It needs deeper security for scripting."
"The price for this EPP platform is expensive and could be improved."
"We would like to see secure integration and multi-factor authentication to be able to access the administration dashboard."
"The product needs to continue to offer better alerts. In particular, around false positives. It needs to reduce them from happening."
"I'd like them to do software distribution too, but they said that that's architecturally not at the product line."
"They could improve on the false positives, reporting and whitelisting features."
"An area for improvement in CylancePROTECT is its pricing, as it's a bit costly."
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 45 reviews while CylancePROTECT is ranked 23rd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 41 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while CylancePROTECT is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Makes it possible to see a threat once and block it across all endpoints and your entire security platform". On the other hand, the top reviewer of CylancePROTECT writes "Ensures advanced AI-driven threat detection to provide robust endpoint security, effectively preventing both known and unknown threats with minimal impact on system performance". Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas CylancePROTECT is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Endpoint Security. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. CylancePROTECT report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.