We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager 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 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 firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"It is stable and scalable."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The stability is very good."
"Definitely, the best feature for Cisco Secure Endpoint is the integration with Talos. On the backend, Talos checks all the signatures, all the malware, and for any attacks going on around the world... Because Secure Endpoint has a connection to it, we get protected by it right then and there."
"The threat Grid with the ability to observe the sandboxing, analyze, and perform investigations of different malicious files has been great."
"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."
"It is a very stable program."
"There are several valuable features including strong prevention and exceptional reporting capabilities."
"It provides real-time visibility and control over endpoints, allowing its users to promptly respond to any security incidents and remediate any vulnerabilities."
"Its most valuable features are its scalability and advanced threat protection for customers."
"The product itself is pretty reliable. The security features that it has make it reliable."
"The best part about Ivanti and Matrix 42 is that they are low-code solution builders with drag-and-drop capabilities regarding service management."
"The most valuable feature of Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager, which my company mainly uses, is patching. Another valuable feature of Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is that it allows you to view the inventory list of the different machines."
"The key differentiator is that it manages mobile devices and laptops in the same console. Windows and Linux are on the same console. This is the only product that does this. It's really the best in the industry."
"It provides security features for unified endpoint management."
"The solution's most valuable features are its patch management functionality and provisioning."
"The most valuable features of the solution are accessing the data through the mobiles and meeting with the compliance for security best practices."
"Patching and remediation are the strongest features."
"The support needs improvement."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"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 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."
"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."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"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."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing policy could be more competitive, similar to Cisco's offerings."
"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."
"...the greatest value of all, would be to make the security into a single pane of glass. Whilst these products are largely integrated from a Talos perspective, they're not integrated from a portal perspective. For example, we have to look at an Umbrella portal and a separate AMP portal. We also have to look at a separate portal for the firewalls. If I could wave a magic wand and have one thing, I would put all the Cisco products into one, simple management portal."
"The initial setup of Cisco Secure Endpoint is complex."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"The solution needs a complete overhaul or makeover. It gets stuck sometimes because they're focusing on the cloud UEM stuff rather than paying as much attention to that particular piece. The ease of use could be improved. It combines many different functionalities that you would need multiple servers like SCCM. If I wanted to train people, I’d move to a higher level from an Apache architect. There are five or six different products. So, training functional staff to use the product can be challenging because it can sometimes be cumbersome. Reporting is challenging. We use Avanti extraction to report off an endpoint. We don't use the reporting because of the need for more functionality, granularity, or customization."
"When you open a new mobile, you automatically come onboard the mobile on the Ivanti platform but it needs some improvements."
"Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager's support provided to its users by the vendor is one area that needs to improve."
"An area for improvement in Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is reporting. It's lacking. For example, Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager reports should tell you if the agent is up to date, if the security patch is updated, etc."
"If I want to integrate the solution with any other solution, pushing the policies from the Ivanti side is a bit tough."
"One of the features that Ivanti could improve is patching for non-Windows settings, such as Linux and Ubuntu."
"The product's blocking definition needs improvement."
More Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 43 reviews while Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is ranked 45th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 7 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Single dashboard management, quick infrastructure threat detection, and high level support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager writes "A security solution to manage devices with patching and remediation feature". 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, whereas Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is most compared with BigFix, Tanium, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trellix Endpoint Security and Check Point Harmony Endpoint. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager 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.