"The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection."
"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."
"The ability to detonate a particular problem in a sandbox environment and understand what the effects are, is helpful. We're trying, for example, to determine, when people send information in, if an attachment is legitimate or not. You just have to open it. If you can do that in a secure sandbox environment, that's an invaluable feature. What you would do otherwise would be very risky and tedious."
"Among the most valuable features are the exclusions. And on the scalability side, we can integrate well with the SIEM orchestration engine and a number of applications that are proprietary or open source."
"Integration is a key selling factor for Cisco security products. We have a Cisco Enterprise Agreement with access to Cisco Email Security, Cisco Firepower, Cisco Stealthwatch, Cisco Talos, Cisco Threat Grid, Cisco Umbrella, and also third-party solutions. This is key to our security and maximizing operations. Because we do have the Email Security appliance and it is integrated with Threat Response, we have everything tied together. Additionally, we are using the Cisco SecureX platform, as we were a beta test for that new solution. With SecureX, we are able to pull all those applications into one pane for visibility and maintenance. This greatly maximizes our security operations."
"It doesn't impact the devices. It is an agent-based solution, and we see no performance knock on cell phones. That was a big thing for us, especially in the mobile world. We don't see battery degradation like you do with other solutions which really drain the battery, as they're constantly doing things. That can shorten the useful life of a device."
"If somebody has been compromised, the question always is: How has it affected other devices in the network? Cisco AMP gives you a very neat view of that."
"Any alert that we get is an actionable alert. Immediately, there is information that we can just click through, see the point in time, what happened, what caused it, and what automatic actions were taken. We can then choose to take any manual actions, if we want, or start our investigation. We're no longer looking at digging into information or wading through hundreds of incidents. There's a list which says where the status is assigned, e.g., under investigation or investigation finished. That is all in the console. It has taken away a lot of the administration, which we would normally be doing, and integrated it into the console for us."
"This is a product at the top of its game. That is the reason we choose to support and sell it."
"The solution offers impressive advanced protection."
"It has a clean and clear interface."
"The solution has a very good endpoint feature."
"The ability to push policies and also to restrict an installation or to restrict any form of threat within the policy has been quite useful."
"I have found the ESET Management Console very good. It gives me many features, such as managing users and installing a new version."
"I find the main valuable feature to be the antivirus, it is very effective with removing viruses."
"The protection and device control features are the most valuable. I found its user interface and integration pretty good. It is very user friendly as compared to other products."
"Both incoming and outgoing traffic is protected."
"F-Secure is useful for keeping user machines up-to-date by pushing out security and critical updates."
"Maybe there is room for improvement in some of the automated remediation. We have other tools in place that AMP feeds into that allow for that to happen, so I look at it as one seamless solution. But if you're buying AMP all by itself, I don't know if it can remove malicious software after the fact or if it requires the other tools that we use to do some of that."
"The one challenge that I see is the use of multiple endpoint protection platforms. For instance, we have AMP, but we also have Microsoft Windows Defender, System Center Endpoint Protection, and Microsoft Malware Protection Engine deployed. So, we have a bunch of different things that do the same thing. What winds up happening is, e.g., if I get an alert for a potential incident or malware and want to pull the file, I'll go to fetch the file to analyze it. But, one of these other programs has already gotten it, so the file has already been quarantined by another endpoint protection system. AMP doesn't realize that and the file fetch fails, then you're left wondering what's going on."
"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 connector updates are very easily done now, and that's improving. Previously, the connector had an issue, where almost every time it needed to be updated, it required a machine reboot. This was always a bit of an inconvenience and a bug. Because with a lot of software now, you don't need to do that and shouldn't need to be rebooting all the time."
"They could improve the main dashboard to more clearly show me the things that I want to see. When I open the dashboard right now, I see a million things and they are not always the things that I need."
"In Orbital, there are tons of prebuilt queries, but there is not a lot of information in lay terms. There isn't enough information to help us with what we're looking for and why we are looking for it with this query. There are probably a dozen queries in there that really focus on what I need to focus on, but they are not always easy to find the first time through."
"It could be improved in connection with artificial intelligence and IoT."
"The GUI needs improvement, it's not good."
"The feature is somewhat lacking in security protection."
"The product could have better integration with third-party products that would help extend functionality."
"They should have better support for different languages and auto-upgrading."
"A few times, we have had problems with downloading an agent. We had to try multiple times and multiple uploads."
"It would be great to have VIP functions added to the solution in a future release."
"The integration capabilities might be lacking a bit."
"While we see dangers within our security system, it would help if there were popups that could immediately alert us or the user of the endpoint that something was detected."
"The solution lacks the automation I need."
"The program and cloud service management is in English. It's not a problem for me, however, it might be for users who don't speak English or use it regularly."
"But the biggest one for us is patch management because this has been our top priority when looking at alternatives. Every solution needs to have patch management, if that's possible. It would cut costs on our side if that feature were included, so we don't need to pay for two separate pieces of software."
More F-Secure Elements Endpoint Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
ESET Endpoint Security is ranked 16th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 30 reviews while F-Secure Elements Endpoint Protection is ranked 30th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 2 reviews. ESET Endpoint Security is rated 8.2, while F-Secure Elements Endpoint Protection is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of ESET Endpoint Security writes "Good at detecting potentially dangerous websites, but the alerts can be confusing at times". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F-Secure Elements Endpoint Protection writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and very stable". ESET Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne, Sophos Intercept X, CrowdStrike Falcon and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, whereas F-Secure Elements Endpoint Protection is most compared with Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne, Trend Micro Apex One and Trellix Endpoint Security. See our ESET Endpoint Security vs. F-Secure Elements Endpoint Protection report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection for Business (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.
