We performed a comparison between Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection and Cisco Secure Endpoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike and others in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)."The setup is pretty simple."
"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"
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"I like the simplicity of this solution and the fact that it saves us time. The deployment was really straightforward and useful and I am impressed by the anti-virus endpoint detection and response offered by this solution."
"The solution has exchange protection. It has a content control, device control, a firewall, and anti-malware as well. They are all quite valuable features for us."
"The endpoint protection is the solution's most valuable feature."
"There are several valuable features including strong prevention and exceptional reporting capabilities."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection."
"Cisco has definitely improved our organization a lot. In terms of business, our company feels safer. We actually switched from legacy signature-based solutions to threat intelligence-based and machine learning-based solutions, which is Cisco Secure. This has improved our security significantly, from 10% of signature-based technology security to 99.9% of the current one which we are running. We were happy."
"The entirety of our network infrastructure is Cisco and the most valuable feature is the integration."
"Among the most valuable features are the exclusions. And on the scalability side, we can integrate well with the SIEM orchestration engine and a number of applications that are proprietary or open source."
"It used to take us a month to find out that something is infected, we now know that same day, as soon it is infected."
"appreciate the File Trajectory feature, as it's excellent for an analyst or mobile analyst. I can track everything that happens on our server from my PC or device. Integration with SecureX is a welcome feature because it connects Cisco's integrated security portfolio with our complete infrastructure. Sandboxing is helpful, and integration with the Cisco environment is excellent as we use many of their products, and that's very valuable for us."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"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"
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The database needs improvement. It needs to be updated quite a bit."
"There needs to be better integration with the environment. Especially, for the active directory and also for keeping up with the changes from Microsoft. We use a lot of Microsoft OS. I have noted that sometimes they lag behind Microsoft updates. For example, when with Windows 10. I had some issues with deploying to Windows 10 because the solution was behind in updating their own services to match the Microsoft release."
"There are blurred lines between anti-virus and endpoint detection so I would say it can be confusing when you are considering buying this program. I would like to see that being explained better to the customer."
"In Orbital, there are tons of prebuilt queries, but there is not a lot of information in lay terms. There isn't enough information to help us with what we're looking for and why we are looking for it with this query. There are probably a dozen queries in there that really focus on what I need to focus on, but they are not always easy to find the first time through."
"The user interface is dull."
"The pricing policy could be more competitive, similar to Cisco's offerings."
"Due to the complexity of the technology that is used and its advanced threat detection capabilities, it is possible to encounter many delays in operation."
"We have had some problems with updates not playing nice with our environment. This is important, because if there is a new version, we need to test it thoroughly before it goes into production. We cannot just say, "There's a new version. It's not going to give us any problems." With the complexity of the solution using multiple engines for multiple tasks, it can sometimes cause performance issues on our endpoints. Therefore, we need to test it before we deploy. That takes one to three days before we can be certain that the new version plays nice with our environment."
"The technical support is very slow."
"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."
"It does not include encryption and decryption of local file shares."
More Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection is ranked 61st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) while Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 44 reviews. Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection is rated 7.4, while Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection writes "An excellent endpoint protection that's scalable and reasonably priced". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Single dashboard management, quick infrastructure threat detection, and high level support". Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection is most compared with Advanced SystemCare Ultimate, CrowdStrike Falcon, VMware Carbon Black Endpoint and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, 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 Cisco Umbrella.
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.