"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."
"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."
"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 feature is signature-based malware detection."
"The entirety of our network infrastructure is Cisco and the most valuable feature is the integration."
"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 most valuable feature is its threat protection and data privacy, including its cyber attack and data protection, as we need to cover and protect data on user devices."
"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."
"The solution is very lightweight and does not consume that much processor in terms of CPU utilization. The centralized management system is very good."
"The dashboard is useful for management, and its cost for the features is hard to beat."
"The solution has very useful MDM features."
"The product is quite affordable."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the protection itself, which works well for us."
"It's a very user-friendly product."
"This solution has a traditional antivirus, I believe that signature-based detection is most valuable."
"This is a product at the top of its game. That is the reason we choose to support and sell it."
"It does its job — it protects us from viruses. We don't really interact with it very much."
"The performance is good."
"The solution is easy to install."
"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."
"This solution can be used with any device, mobiles, desktops, or any appliances."
"It provides a feature for scanning and analyzing endpoints, which is a value-add for our infrastructure. With the advancements in the Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs), Sophos Intercept X analyzes an APT and the behavior of the endpoints. It then gives us a detailed dashboard with more information about the endpoints and their security and risk level. While deploying Sophos Intercept X, we identified a lot of vulnerability and risky endpoints that our previous solution didn't cover, which proved that this solution is the best."
"The solution has very good usability."
"The most valuable features are the cloud administration and the strength of the ransomware protection."
"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 had a lot of noise at the beginning, and we had to turn it down based on exclusions, application whitelisting, and excluding unknown benign applications. Cisco should understand the need for continuous updates on the custom Cisco exclusions and the custom applications that come out-of-the-box with the AMP for Endpoints."
"...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."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"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."
"The GUI needs improvement, it's not good."
"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."
"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."
"The integration capabilities might be lacking a bit."
"ESET's updates are mostly manual. That's my biggest concern. I'd like it to be more automatic. I've had to download the new version and run it manually to install it. I've got several workstations like that right now."
"A few times, we have had problems with downloading an agent. We had to try multiple times and multiple uploads."
"We would like to see more options in the help menu for users."
"We are looking to move towards an EDR solution rather than EPP. EDR is a solution that can dynamically detect threats based on the process behavior. It would be better if this solution was an EDR and an EPP solution, this would increase security protection."
"The adware module could be improved."
"Probably, if they mix the EDR solution with the antivirus, they would have a better, more cost-effective, solution."
"Sometimes, ESET sends alerts within my own network that cause confusion. That is, it might warn about contamination, or that the VM has crashed, but it doesn't go further than that. It just shows me the alert and sometimes I am not sure what to do about it."
"The problem is that if you have a lot of different components going on, each managed under a different umbrella, then you're going to be spending a lot of time hopping back and forth between the different components to see, "Well, I got hit here. What did my firewall see? I got hit in the firewall, the firewall says it allowed that attack in, did it land on anything to compromise any of my endpoints?""
"Intercept X needs more reporting and device management features, so I can get messages from PCs that let me know if I need to do something with them."
"When I use a proxy, I can bypass Sophos, which is an area that needs improvement."
"The deployment part needs to be improved."
"The solution is heavy in the usage of resources, you can notice the performance decrease. This should prove in the future."
"The after sales service and support could be improved."
"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."
"We would like more application control in order to be able to schedule times and access."
ESET Endpoint Security is ranked 16th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 31 reviews while Sophos Intercept X is ranked 6th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 63 reviews. ESET Endpoint Security is rated 8.2, while Sophos Intercept X is rated 8.6. 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 Sophos Intercept X writes "Great reporting and good training with a pretty straightforward setup". ESET Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, whereas Sophos Intercept X is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Fortinet FortiEDR. See our ESET Endpoint Security vs. Sophos Intercept X report.
See our list of best EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) vendors.
We monitor all EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) 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.
