We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The setup is pretty simple."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"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."
"For the initial first level of support, we provide it from our side. If there's escalation required, we use Cisco tech for the AMP. And again, they are perfect. I mean, one of the best, compared to any other vendors."
"There are no issues or drops in the solution's performance...The solution's technical support was helpful."
"There are several valuable features including strong prevention and exceptional reporting capabilities."
"Secure Endpoint has decreased our time to remediate by providing the tools and the integrations we need so we can quickly look across our entire network, look for those threats, and actually make good decisions."
"It provides real-time visibility and control over endpoints, allowing its users to promptly respond to any security incidents and remediate any vulnerabilities."
"The VPN is most valuable. It's the best thing in the market today. We can use two-factor authentication with another platform, and we can authenticate with two-factor."
"The best feature that we found most valuable, is actually the security product for the endpoint, formerly known as AMP. It has behavioral analytics, so you can be more proactive toward zero-day threats. I found that quite good."
"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."
"I like the tool’s response to malware and trojans."
"It is a scalable solution...It is a stable solution."
"The solution is scalable."
"Encryption is the most valuable feature. It creates an encryption tunnel from your location to the delivery address."
"The most valuable features of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response are all the features. The features have all helped us and most recently malware has been an issue in our company and malware protection has been effective."
"The product has an easy-to-use EDR module based on signature-based antivirus detection. It is a complete software."
"The most valuable features of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response are the threat detection technologies, and activity monitoring and support tools. Additionally, the port and USB security, and antivirus are effective."
"We compared Kaspersky and Trend Micro. The latter is significantly more expensive. That's the main difference."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert Pros →
"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."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"The support needs improvement."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"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."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"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."
"It's pretty good as it is, but its cost could be improved."
"The initial setup is a bit complex because you need to execute existing antiviruses or security software that you have on your device."
"The pricing policy could be more competitive, similar to Cisco's offerings."
"In the next release, I would for it to have back up abilities. I would like the ability to go back to a point in time to when my PC was uninfected and to the moment of when the infection happened."
"The product does not provide options like tunnel creation or virtual appliances."
"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 cannot currently block URLs over websites."
"The solution is expensive."
"There are some issues with EDR's web policy blocking sites that are marked as exceptions."
"Documentation needs to be simplified and improved so that it provides good product awareness for end users."
"Device control is lacking in EDR."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response should continue to improve its protection while adapting to the changing threat ecosystems. Having more advanced features would be a benefit."
"Could include some additional protection."
"The prices can go down a little bit."
"Installing Kaspersky is complex. It requires more work from system admins and takes almost one week to deploy, including integration and mapping with other solutions. You also have to configure Kaspersky EDR sandboxing then set up permissions for various teams and customers."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert Cons →
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 44 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert is ranked 17th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 44 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert is rated 8.2. 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 Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert writes "Solid security and performance; overall a useful tool". 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 Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert is most compared with Trend Vision One, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cynet, IBM Security QRadar and Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert 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.