"The threat Grid with the ability to observe the sandboxing, analyze, and perform investigations of different malicious files has been great."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The product can scale if you need it to."
"This solution is stable."
"I like how it protects the network and all the endpoints."
"I think that all the features are valuable for our environment."
"One of the main features of this solution is the fast scanning capabilities."
"One of the most valuable features is that it's quite secure. I'm satisfied with this solution."
"The interface is really good. It's nice and simple."
"There is excellent integration with the app directory."
"I think the costing is fine compared to other products. Cost-wise you definitely get value for your money."
"The thing that I like is that they have gathered almost all the products in one management server, the ePolicy Orchestrator."
"The performance is good."
"There is a new feature where you can set thresholds for all the CPU consumption allowing for no consumption on the servers when the scans happen. It is a separate plugin or addon, and if we have it on all the virtual machines it automatically checks the resources, and based on that, it will schedule the scans. That is something that I have not seen in other antivirus solutions, such as Symantec."
"The detection is great and the solution is constantly improving."
"The solution offers very good endpoint security."
"I have found the most valuable features to be the ability to manage the solution from anywhere and having an overview of the companies security."
"The solution scales well."
"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 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."
"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."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"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 room for improvement would be on event notifications. I have mine tuned fairly well. I do feel that if you subscribe to all the event notification types out-of-the-box, or don't really go through and take the time to filter out events, the notifications can become overwhelming with information. Sometimes, when you're overwhelmed with information, you just say, "I'm not going to look at anything because I'm receiving so much." I recommend the vendor come up with a white paper on the best practices for event notifications."
"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."
"Currently, it doesn't have a cloud option. This is something that they should look into going forward."
"I'd like Kaspersky to be more stable and secure."
"Maybe the solution's monitoring could be improved with more dashboards, so there's no back and forth, back and forth."
"he next thing that I would like to see in this solution are DLP features."
"It would be better if it were more secure and stable. I would also like to see more powerful features in the next release."
"The solution needs to lower its pricing."
"I'd like to see them improve encryption and remote management in the future. Kaspersky could also improve its scanning technology. Other solutions have adopted machine learning and deep learning, but Kaspersky still uses signature-based scanning."
"It is expensive, it could be cheaper, so I think the solution's pricing could be better."
"It would be nice if the solution was a bit more stable."
"With McAfee, if there is a zero-day vulnerability, you have to download the patch for it from the McAfee website, then apply it to your endpoint."
"It can be quite complicated to learn McAfee Endpoint Security and to feel comfortable with the environment."
"The management console is a little bit difficult to understand for admins. You need a lot of time in order to become familiar with that. It is a little bit complicated and not too easy to understand. Its price can also be improved. Its price is higher than its competitors. McAfee also needs to have better cloud integration and more data centers in the EU. The cloud center should be in Europe or in Germany. In Germany, it is really important to have access to your data within the same country. Customer data needs to be placed and processed in the same country."
"The solution needs to offer better local technical support."
"The resolution time should be faster."
"Technical support is an area that can be improved because sometimes, the response time is a bit slow and the explanation is short."
"There are more secure featured solutions from McAfee on the market but for smaller companies like ours, they are too expensive."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 73 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 15th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 38 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "A mature product offering good protection and very good features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Protect your business against a wide variety of threats". Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Sophos Intercept X, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Carbon Black CB Defense, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with McAfee MVISION Endpoint, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Symantec Endpoint Security, CrowdStrike Falcon and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business vs. Trellix Endpoint Security 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.
