We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense and Mimecast Email Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Email Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Our customers are satisfied with Defender for 365 because Microsoft products are easy to use and customize to meet the client's needs. Everything is in one place, so we can adjust policies as needed for phishing, DLP, ATP, or any other security features that our clients want to apply."
"Some of the valuable features on the email side are anti-phishing, anti-malware, and Safe Links."
"Defender helps us prioritize threats across our organization."
"Since we have started using the solution, there have been fewer compromises."
"Threat Explorer is an invaluable tool for me, and it plays a crucial role in helping me discern the origins of various email campaigns, pinpointing where they emanate from, and identifying the individuals within our organization who are affected."
"The product is not resource-intensive."
"The two main features that prove most beneficial for us are URL scanning and attachment scanning."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is a stable solution."
"The ability to see east-west traffic is its most valuable feature. Traditionally, email defense focuses on north-south, inbound-outbound, egress-ingress traffic. With Cisco Secure Email Cloud Mailbox, it's able to quickly identify, track, tag, and categorize emails that are internal. That can typically give us visibility into if there's an internal compromised account (for example). Someone can then use that internal compromised account to email additional accounts with either malicious software or links, but internal within that Office tenant. Effectively, that email message never leaves the tenant. Any of the mail gateways really do not have any method or way of seeing this traffic since it's not leaving the environment."
"Secure Email Threat Defense's scalability is good."
"It has an efficient email filtering feature."
"Cisco has a threat mechanism called cloud-based Talos, where all the threats are inbuilt."
"On ease of use, it rates very high. It's something that I was able to get into without really looking at any documentation. I wanted to see what it felt like before I started looking at any documentation on how to use it, and it was very easy to use. It works very smoothly. The user experience is very intuitive. They did an amazing job on that."
"It's very easy to deploy and configure."
"Cisco Secure Email Cloud Mailbox can handle a complete portfolio, which is required to protect any kind of attack coming from emails. However, it does not have advanced phishing, but it is available through Cisco. If you compare Cisco Secure Email Cloud Mailbox with the competition, in the competition you have to have one or two solutions together to address the customer's requirement, whereas Cisco Secure Email Cloud Mailbox is addressing everything, such as web domain and email protection. If there is any kind of challenge it will come across through email."
"This solution is easy to use."
"It offers an easy initial setup."
"The setup was easy."
"Due to our specialized use case, that HIPAA dictionary really comes in handy."
"It's good, it keeps the spam out."
"Its administration console is very easy to use. The administration console is absolutely important because you interact with the platform through it."
"The solution is pretty straightforward to use and easy to set up."
"It does a good job for us, and its admin console is easy to use."
"Mimecast certainly helped my customers reduce phishing emails."
"Microsoft should provide more documentation for users so they can self-educate. I would like to see more documentation for advanced security features."
"Microsoft security solutions work as expected. They are constantly updating the solutions to make them better. At the same time, the changes can impact a customer's environment, and we need to adjust settings. Sometimes we aren't aware of the changes, and nothing is pushed from the backend automatically."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 should be more proactive."
"We are always looking for others tools to increase automation on tasks. There can be better integration with other solutions, such as PowerPoint and email."
"The pre-sales cost calculations could be more transparent."
"You should be able to deploy Defender for every subscription without the need to add servers."
"It would be better if it were more scalable. It depends on the architecture, but we would like to make it more scalable for both data centers."
"The product must provide better malware detection."
"Customers will benefit greatly from monthly billing because the majority of customers today use the cloud, be it Office 365, or Google Cloud."
"Cisco Secure Email Cloud Mailbox can improve by adding advanced phishing, then the solution would become the best in the market. However, this could increase the price even more. Additionally, if CES with domain protection could be added it would be an even better solution."
"There is still room for improvement in terms of integrations with other Cisco tools and non-Cisco tools. There is also some room for improvement needed in terms of the reporting."
"This solution could be improved by integration with Sandbox."
"The solution is a bit expensive."
"The search area has room for improvement. When you go to the next page, it remains at the bottom of the current page that you're on. Also, under the reports section, it allows you to see any "convictions," but if you want to search for those convictions you have to remember when they all came in and go back and edit the search accordingly. You cannot click on the list of convictions to actually see if you had a spike at a certain time."
"We encounter issues while searching for missing emails."
"The pricing could always be better."
"The feature that should be included is to remove the block on the encrypted files."
"The solution is very expensive."
"The reaction time between a new threat being identified and Mimecast picking it up needs to be narrowed a bit."
"As a user, the user interface of the management console could be upgraded, for example."
"They should improve the cookies management feature."
"I'd like to have better support from the product in the future."
"The solution's console interface was recently changed for the admins, but the previous one was much better because we could open tabs on it."
"Their support should be improved. They are notorious for sending you to knowledge-based articles rather than actually talking to you, but that is, unfortunately, kind of becoming a trend with everything. In terms of features, I haven't had any complaints. However, I don't like the fact they moved to a paid training subscription model. They used to have a lot of free webinars for training, but they have started to charge for them in the past year."
More Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense is ranked 16th in Email Security with 11 reviews while Mimecast Email Security is ranked 5th in Secure Email Gateway (SEG) with 23 reviews. Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense is rated 8.2, while Mimecast Email Security is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense writes "Easy to deploy and configure with excellent support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mimecast Email Security writes "It gives clients peace of mind and helps them educate their users about threats". Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense is most compared with Cisco Secure Email, Kiteworks, Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP), Abnormal Security and Armorblox, whereas Mimecast Email Security is most compared with Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP), Abnormal Security, Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration, Cisco Secure Email and Fortinet FortiMail. See our Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense vs. Mimecast Email Security report.
We monitor all Email Security 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.