Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Secure Endpoint vs Mimecast Incydr comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.4
Cisco Secure Endpoint enhances productivity and reduces costs by streamlining threat detection, integrating tools, and minimizing manual intervention.
Sentiment score
7.5
Mimecast Incydr improved cost efficiency, ensured data recovery, enhanced security, reduced downtime, and provided significant financial and administrative savings.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.1
Cisco Secure Endpoint support is praised for responsiveness and expertise, providing quick issue resolution and valuable user guidance.
Sentiment score
8.8
Mimecast Incydr's customer service excels in prompt, knowledgeable support, offering efficient issue resolution and valuable online resources.
Cisco has good technical support, especially considering these are newer solutions compared to traditional routing and switching products.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.4
Cisco Secure Endpoint is scalable, integrates with SecureX for efficient management, and supports diverse industries without extra resources.
Sentiment score
7.9
Mimecast Incydr seamlessly scales from small to large deployments, supporting expansion with efficient licensing and storage management.
Cisco Secure Endpoint is definitely scalable.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.5
Cisco Secure Endpoint is highly stable, reliable, and trusted for performance, earning high ratings from users in various enterprises.
Sentiment score
7.8
Mimecast Incydr is reliable and stable, with minor issues swiftly resolved, offering robust performance and minimal service disruptions.
We have not encountered any problems.
 

Room For Improvement

Cisco Secure Endpoint requires better integration, reporting, and UI enhancements, alongside improved pricing, AI capabilities, and IoT support.
Mimecast Incydr needs better usability, integration, reporting, legal hold, Safari support, and admin features to enhance user experience.
The forensic capabilities need enhancement, especially for deep forensic data collection.
 

Setup Cost

Cisco Secure Endpoint offers competitive and flexible pricing with value-rich features, despite some complexity in licensing.
Mimecast Incydr offers competitive, transparent pricing with negotiable discounts, praised flexibility, and valued support, though complex licensing challenges smaller businesses.
Cisco is aggressive in pricing, making it competitive and sometimes even cheaper than other good products like CrowdStrike, Microsoft Defender, or SentinelOne.
 

Valuable Features

Cisco Secure Endpoint provides advanced security features, cross-platform support, and ease of use with strong threat intelligence and support.
Mimecast Incydr provides seamless, secure data protection with versatile features and robust customer support, enhancing user trust and efficiency.
Cisco Secure Endpoint is very good in machine learning, which allows it to secure offline contents even if not connected to the internet.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Secure Endpoint
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
49
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (26th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (20th), Cisco Security Portfolio (6th)
Mimecast Incydr
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
78
Ranking in other categories
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (24th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Cisco Secure Endpoint and Mimecast Incydr aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Cisco Secure Endpoint is designed for Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) and holds a mindshare of 1.5%, down 1.6% compared to last year.
Mimecast Incydr, on the other hand, focuses on Data Loss Prevention (DLP), holds 2.1% mindshare, up 1.6% since last year.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Cisco Secure Endpoint1.5%
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint10.0%
CrowdStrike Falcon8.2%
Other80.3%
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Mimecast Incydr2.1%
Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention13.0%
Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention9.0%
Other75.9%
Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
 

Featured Reviews

Mark Broughton - PeerSpot reviewer
Tighter integration with Umbrella and Firepower gave us eye-opening information
We were using a third-party help desk. One of the ways that they were fixing problems was to delete the client and then add the client back if there was an issue where the client had stopped communicating. Any improvement in the client communicating back to the server would be good, particularly for machines that are offline for a couple of weeks. A lot of our guys were working on a rotation where the machine might be offline for that long. They were also terrible about rebooting their machines, so those network connections didn't necessarily get refreshed. So, anything that could improve that communication would be good. Also, an easier way to do deduplication of machines, or be alerted to the fact that there's more than one instance of a machine, would be useful. If you could say, "Okay, we've got these two machines. This one says it's not reporting and this one says it's been reporting. Obviously, somebody did a reinstall," it would help. That way you could get a more accurate device count, so you're not having an inflated number. Not that Cisco was going to come down on you and say, "Oh, you're using too many licenses," right away. But to have a much more accurate license usage count by being able to better dedupe the records would be good. I also sent over a couple of other ideas to our technical rep. A lot of that had to do with the reporting options. It would be really nice to be able to do a lot more in the reporting. You can't really drill down into the reports that are there. The reporting and the need for the documentation to be updated and current would be my two biggest areas of complaint. Also, there was one section when I was playing with the automation where it was asking for the endpoint type rather than the machine name. If I could have just put in the machine name, that would have been great. So there are some opportunities, when it comes to searching, to have more options. If I wanted to search, for example, by a Mac address because, for some reason, I thought there was a duplication and I didn't have the machine name, how could I pull it up with the Mac address? When you're getting to that level, you're really starting to get into the ticky tacky. I would definitely put the reporting and documentation way ahead of that.
Chuck_Mackey - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides comprehensive visibility and protection, helps in identifying the gaps in security, and comes with excellent onboarding support
In a couple of instances, we had a little bit of trouble in getting it distributed throughout the organization. We ultimately managed to do it, but they talk about it being a pretty simple process, and it became a little laborious. It would just turn away. The agents were not being distributed. It was just churning and churning and churning. When we were looking for specific categories of data, it was getting bogged down, but that was not even so much Code42, although some of it was their issue. It really has to do with the overall infrastructure and what the organization is prepared to do. If the infrastructure or the networking is a little hinky or you don't have a really finely tuned network infrastructure environment and your patches aren't up to date on your servers and your endpoints, it could get a little sticky. Other than that, it was okay. We really didn't have much problem beyond that. It took a couple of days to sort that out, but it was no big deal.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Performing Arts
8%
University
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business21
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise21
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business24
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco Secure Endpoint?
The product's initial setup phase was very simple.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco Secure Endpoint?
Cisco is aggressive in pricing, making it competitive and sometimes even cheaper than other good products like CrowdStrike, Microsoft Defender, or SentinelOne.
What needs improvement with Cisco Secure Endpoint?
Cisco Secure Endpoint lacks features like DLP which other vendors offer. XDR is new, so integration capabilities with third-party tools need improvement. The forensic capabilities need enhancement,...
What is your primary use case for Code42 Incydr?
Data Leakage Protection on large scale environments. This can be to protect against leakage on endpoints and servers that consist of highly classified or propriety information. It can be added on a...
 

Also Known As

Cisco AMP for Endpoints
Code42 Next-Gen DLP, Code42 Next-Gen Data Loss Protection, Code42 Forensic File Search, Code42 Backup + Restore
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Heritage Bank, Mobile County Schools, NHL University, Thunder Bay Regional, Yokogawa Electric, Sam Houston State University, First Financial Bank
Adobe, Okta, Samsung, Taylormade, Boston University, Lending Club, North Highland, Stanford University, Ping Identity, Qualcomm, Pandora.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Mimecast Incydr and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.