We performed a comparison between Bitdefender GravityZone EDR and Cisco Secure Endpoint based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Bitdefender GravityZone EDR offers comprehensive detection capabilities and an advanced management interface. It is known for its easy setup, scalability, and reasonable pricing. Cisco Secure Endpoint stands out for its threat-hunting capabilities, sandboxing, and swift response to attacks. Users also praised the solution's seamless integration with Talos for continuous protection. The reviews suggest that Bitdefender GravityZone EDR can improve by adding a built-in firewall, optimizing deployment, and enhancing encryption. Cisco Secure Endpoint could benefit from providing more scenario-based information and a simpler, more customizable main dashboard. Integration with artificial intelligence and IoT is another area for improvement.
Service and Support: Opinions are divided about Bitdefender's customer service, with some users reporting prompt and helpful assistance and others experiencing responses and an overwhelming amount of emails. Users said Cisco support is efficient and responsive, and customers also found it easy to find answers in the documentation without help. Some users recommend enhancing training programs and streamlining management consoles to further enhance the level of support provided.
Ease of Deployment: Users say Bitdefender GravityZone EDR is straightforward to set up, and deployment can be completed in less than a day. Users generally found Cisco Secure Endpoint easy to set up, but some users reported challenges related to agent behavior and configuration. The initial installation involves downloading an agent and installing it on endpoints, and the total deployment time ranged from a week to several months.
Pricing: Bitdefender GravityZone EDR’s licensing is considered reasonable, and contract lengths are flexible. There may be additional charges for extra features or services. Cisco Secure Endpoint's pricing is seen as fair and reasonable. Some users requested additional discounts, particularly for educational purposes.
ROI: Bitdefender GravityZone EDR offers varied ROI based on different situations. Cisco Secure Endpoint offers cost savings and the potential to earn money by extending services.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Bitdefender GravityZone EDR over Cisco Secure Endpoint. Users appreciate GravityZone EDR's firewall functionality, advanced control options, centralized dashboard, and robust security measures. Our reviews say GravityZone EDR provides a more user-friendly experience and better value for the price compared to Cisco Secure Endpoint.
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"If you detect a virus, you can isolate the PC from the network and prevent access to the internet, network and routers. Once fixed, you can give access back to the client. We have not had this functionality using other solutions."
"It's a very stable solution."
"It is a good anti-malware product that is highly stable."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The most valuable feature for me is the ability to whitelist, blacklist, and be very granular as to what I blocked, what apps I blocked, and what websites I block. I think that's probably the most valuable feature."
"It was easy to set up."
"The solution's deployment is very easy and flexible."
"They are constantly updating the solution against malware."
"One of the best features of AMP is its cloud feature. It doesn't matter where the device is in regards to whether it's inside or outside of your network environment, especially right now when everybody's remote and taken their laptops home. You don't have to be VPNed into the environment for AMP to work. AMP will work anywhere in the world, as long as it has an Internet connection. You get protection and reporting with it. No matter where the device is, AMP has still got coverage on it and is protecting it. You still have the ability to manage and remediate things. The cloud feature is the magic bullet. This is what makes the solution a valuable tool as far as I'm concerned."
"The solution's integration capabilities are excellent. It's one of the best features."
"It doesn't impact the devices. It is an agent-based solution, and we see no performance knock on cell phones. That was a big thing for us, especially in the mobile world. We don't see battery degradation like you do with other solutions which really drain the battery, as they're constantly doing things. That can shorten the useful life of a device."
"The visibility and insight this solution gives you into threats is pretty granular. It has constant monitoring. You can get onto the device trajectory to look at a threat, but you can also see what happened prior to the threat. You can see what happened after the threat. You can see what other applications were incorporated into the execution of the threat. For example, you have the event, but you see that the event was launched by Google Chrome, which was launched by something else. Then, after the event, something else was launched by whatever the threat was. Therefore, it gives you great detail, a timeline, and continuity of events leading up to whatever the incident is, and then, after. This helps you understand and nail down what the threat is and how to fix it."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the IPS and the integration with ISE."
"The integration with other Cisco products seemed to be really effective. We had Umbrella in place and we were using AnyConnect as well as Firepower. Once a threat was detected, being able to do the threat lookups and the live tracking was really useful."
"The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection."
"It is a very stable program."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"The product can be improved by identifying errors."
"For many, the problems come mostly when they start tweaking or short-cutting - particularly for patch management."
"They were working on the encryption management for laptops, and if they complete it then it would be helpful."
"The reporting is much too simple."
"The software itself is solid. It would be better if it was more of a real-time solution, like SentinelOne. The one thing that holds me back on the SentinelOne side is that I can blacklist websites and stuff like that, but it's not as granular as Bitdefender. With Bitdefender, I feel like I have more control over what I can whitelist and blacklist."
"We find it's making the machines run slow."
"There's room for improvement in terms of protection. That's my primary concern."
"I have not had used the EDR portion of the solution to do any custom scripting to allow further advanced operations on the endpoints. From what I understand from reading the comments on reviews is that it is not particularly flexible in this regard."
"We don't have issues. We think that Cisco covers all of the security aspects on the market. They continue to innovate in the right way."
"Maybe there is room for improvement in some of the automated remediation. We have other tools in place that AMP feeds into that allow for that to happen, so I look at it as one seamless solution. But if you're buying AMP all by itself, I don't know if it can remove malicious software after the fact or if it requires the other tools that we use to do some of that."
"The integration of the Cisco products for security could be better in the sense that not everything is integrated, and they aren't working together. In addition, not all products are multi-tenant, so you can't separate different customer environments from each other, which makes it a little bit hard for a managed service provider to deliver services to the customers."
"The solution needs more in-depth analytics."
"Logging could be better in terms of sending more logs to Cisco Firepower or Cisco ASA. That's an area where it could be made better."
"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."
"The thing I hate the most, which they have not fixed, is when it creates duplicate entries within a console. If you have a computer and you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, or you upgrade your agent from version 6 to 7, it creates a new instance in there instead of updating the information. Instead of paying a license for one computer, I have to license two computers until I manually go in, search for all the duplicate entries, and clean them out myself."
"I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."
Bitdefender GravityZone EDR is ranked 15th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 54 reviews while Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 43 reviews. Bitdefender GravityZone EDR is rated 8.6, while Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Bitdefender GravityZone EDR writes "High-quality threat intelligence, including encryption and mobile device protection". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Single dashboard management, quick infrastructure threat detection, and high level support". Bitdefender GravityZone EDR is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon, Intercept X Endpoint and VMware Carbon Black Endpoint, whereas Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint and Symantec Endpoint Security. See our Bitdefender GravityZone EDR vs. Cisco Secure Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.