"The threat Grid with the ability to observe the sandboxing, analyze, and perform investigations of different malicious files has been great."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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 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."
"The visibility and insight this solution gives you into threats is pretty granular. It has constant monitoring. You can get onto the device trajectory to look at a threat, but you can also see what happened prior to the threat. You can see what happened after the threat. You can see what other applications were incorporated into the execution of the threat. For example, you have the event, but you see that the event was launched by Google Chrome, which was launched by something else. Then, after the event, something else was launched by whatever the threat was. Therefore, it gives you great detail, a timeline, and continuity of events leading up to whatever the incident is, and then, after. This helps you understand and nail down what the threat is and how to fix it."
"It has a feature called Isolation. If a device is compromised, we can connect it to our SOC, and no one would be able to access it. This way we can limit the damage to the network while we are investigating."
"It is easy to use, flexible, and stable. Because it is a cloud-based solution and it integrates all endpoints of the cloud, we can do an IOC-based search. It can search the entire enterprise and tell us the endpoints that are possibly compromised."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"FireEye Endpoint Security's scalability is awesome. I think it is one of the best on that front."
"The exploit guard and malware protection features are very useful. The logon tracker feature is also very useful. They have also given new modules such as logout backup, process backup. We ordered these modules from the FireEye market place, and we have installed these modules. We are currently exploring these features."
"My impression of the stability of this solution is good. We have not had any issues with stability."
"Kaspersky is easy to use, and it performs well."
"The most valuable feature is endpoint protection."
"This is a feature-rich product."
"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."
"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."
"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 thing I hate the most, which they have not fixed, is when it creates duplicate entries within a console. If you have a computer and you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, or you upgrade your agent from version 6 to 7, it creates a new instance in there instead of updating the information. Instead of paying a license for one computer, I have to license two computers until I manually go in, search for all the duplicate entries, and clean them out myself."
"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."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"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 reports need more development. They need more details on the reports and more details taking the executive view into consideration."
"Most of these types of solutions including others, such as Carbon Black and FortiEDR, all have the same features. However, Carbon Black is the leader when it comes to being robust and user-friendly and this solution should improve in those areas to stay more competitive."
"Malware detection can be better. It doesn't have support and detection for the recent malware, but it has a compensatory control where it can do the behavior-based assessment and alert you when there is something malicious or unexpected. For example, when a certain user is executing the privilege command, which is not normal. These dynamic detections are good, and they compensate for malware detection."
"The Linux support is very poor. I use base detection. Currently, they are providing malware protection and logon track features in Windows and Mac. These features aren't available in Linux. It will be helpful to extend these capabilities to Linux. We would also like assets grouping and device lock protection features, which are included in their roadmap."
"It has very good integrations. However, its integration with Palo Alto was not good, and they seem to be working on it at the backend. It is not very resource-hungry, but it can be even better in terms of resource utilization. It could be improved in terms of efficiency, memory sizing, and disk consumption by agents."
"We would like to solution to offer better security."
"They have something called Managed Detection and Response. They get intel from their customers, and that intel is shared with the rest of FireEye's customers. I want to subscribe to their intel, but that is not available to us."
"The solution can improve by providing automatic fixing of vulnerabilities and reducing the resources used in the server component and endpoint agent. They are very bulky and use a lot of CPU, memory, and hard drive resources."
"The technical support team should respond in a more timely manner."
"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."
"I would like to integrate Kaspersky with my Log Collector SIEM. Right now that's not possible."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
FireEye Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 5 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is ranked 20th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 4 reviews. FireEye Endpoint Security is rated 8.2, while Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of FireEye Endpoint Security writes "Enables us to do IOC-based search across the enterprise and isolate compromised devices". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response writes "Helped us prevent ATM looting". FireEye Endpoint Security is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Code42 Next-Gen DLP, whereas Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is most compared with Trend Micro XDR, Fortinet FortiEDR, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra Plus. See our FireEye Endpoint Security vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response 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.
