We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Intercept X Endpoint based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Cisco Secure Endpoint stands out for its threat-hunting capabilities, sandboxing, and swift response to attacks. Users also praised the solution's seamless integration with Talos for continuous protection. Intercept X Endpoint combines two products into one solution, offering strong performance, server protection, and efficient threat management capabilities. Cisco Secure Endpoint could benefit from providing more scenario-based information and a simpler, more customizable main dashboard. Integration with artificial intelligence and IoT is another area for improvement. Intercept X Endpoint could integrate more seamlessly with third-party vendors and improve support for virtual infrastructures.
Service and Support: Users said Cisco support is efficient and responsive, and customers also found it easy to find answers in the documentation without help. Some users recommend enhancing training programs and streamlining management consoles to further enhance the level of support provided. Some users found Intercept X Endpoint's support team knowledgeable and supportive, while others expressed dissatisfaction with responsiveness.
Ease of Deployment: Users generally found Cisco Secure Endpoint easy to set up, but some users reported challenges related to agent behavior and configuration. The initial installation involves downloading an agent and installing it on endpoints, and total deployment time ranged from a week to several months. Intercept X Endpoint has a straightforward initial setup, with quick installation and simple configuration and maintenance. Some users said they occasionally encountered issues that required reinstallation.
Pricing: Cisco Secure Endpoint's pricing is seen as fair and reasonable. Some users requested additional discounts, particularly for educational purposes. Intercept X Endpoint is generally seen as fairly priced, but some users think it’s on the higher end of the price scale.
ROI: Cisco Secure Endpoint offers cost savings and the potential to earn money by extending services. Users say that Intercept X Endpoint offers exceptional defense against ransomware and zero-day threats, leading to a positive return on investment.
Comparison Results: Our users favor Cisco Secure Endpoint over Intercept X Endpoint. Cisco Secure Endpoint offers more comprehensive protection, better customer service, and support, making it the preferred choice. Cisco Secure Endpoint has some advanced features for finding and resolving threats that Intercept X lacks. Users also appreciate Cisco Secure Endpoint's pricing, whereas some users say Intercept X Endpoint has room to improve on price.
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"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 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."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Another of my favorite features is called the Device Trajectory, where it shows everything that's going on, on a computer. It shows the point in time when a virus is downloaded, so you can see if the user was surfing the internet or had a program open. It shows every running process and file access on the computer and saves it like a snapshot when it detects something malicious. It also has a File Trajectory, so you can even see if that file has been found on any of your other computers that have AMP."
"The console feature gives a centralized management of what's going on, and if something happens, it gives you an alert. So, that's the most important feature for me."
"The solution makes it possible to see a threat once and block it everywhere across all endpoints and the entire security platform. It has the ability to block right down to the file and application level across all devices based on policies, such as, blacklisting and whitelisting of software and applications. This is good. Its strength is the ability to identify threats very quickly, then lock them and the network down and block the threats across the organization and all devices, which is what you want. You don't want to be spending time working out how to block something. You want to block something very quickly, letting that flow through to all the devices and avoiding the same scenario on different operating systems."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection."
"I'm only using the AMP (advanced malware protection) which is protecting my file system from all the malicious things that might happen. It should protect all kinds of things that might happen on the servers, things that I cannot see."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the IPS and the integration with ISE."
"Real-time threat prevention using sandboxing, file trajectory, and retrospective security."
"It is a practically maintenance free intelligent system that independently protects environments from malicious attacks."
"It is easy to interact with, and its cost is also good."
"Sophos Intercept X is easy to install and has a lower price than similar solutions."
"Offers artificial intelligence, security metrics and a lot of information gathered to make decisions."
"One of the best use cases involves synchronized security staff, which allows us to manage both the firewall and the anti-virus features from the cloud."
"It is quite scalable. You can always add more users. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten."
"This solution is easy to configure."
"Synchronization with the firewall is most valuable."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"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"
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"Detections could be improved."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"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."
"One of the things that Cisco Secure Endpoint really needs is that it's not just Secure Endpoint, it's a point product, and I think we really need to move into solution-based selling, designing, and architecting. So that we're not worried about putting things on endpoints and selling 'x' amount of endpoints, but to provide a solution that covers all of the remote access and sell them as solutions that cover multiple things."
"The product does not provide options like tunnel creation or virtual appliances."
"On the firewall level, they were lagging a little bit behind, but they are running up again. I have full trust in the new 3000 series of firewalls where we would also be able to look more into the traffic that we're monitoring and get more security layers in our services. That would definitely be a big step."
"It could be improved in connection with artificial intelligence and IoT."
"The initial setup of Cisco Secure Endpoint is complex."
"...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."
"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 pricing policy could be more competitive, similar to Cisco's offerings."
"The initial setup was not very user-friendly."
"The cloud management console could be a little more user-friendly."
"We've had difficulty with uninstalling the solution. When we try to uninstall an old version of the basic Sophos Antivirus, it doesn't seem to uninstall completely."
"They should keep doing what they're doing. Both of them have entered the EDR/MDR space, and they're keeping up with their competitors. I have a hard time understanding why their capabilities aren't garnering more attention."
"Technical support can be improved. There could be shared support, i.e. where someone in Egypt can respond."
"Intercept X could enhance its support services, particularly in terms of response time and resource allocation."
"Sophos has a lot of different features. Some of them are tied to different clients, which may mean that different prices or licenses have to be added on. It can be a little bit confusing if you're not familiar with the logic of how they work. They can make it a little bit clearer."
"The integration has room for improvement, especially with Mac OS."
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 43 reviews while Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 100 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4. 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 Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". 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 Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Seqrite Endpoint Security. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Intercept X Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.