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 price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"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."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"This is stable and scalable."
"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."
"I am told that we get over 100 million emails a month. This filters them down and allows only somewhere about three million emails, which is a great help."
"The most valuable feature at this moment is that Cisco AMP or Cisco Secure Endpoint solution is delivering a lot of things, and I always say to a lot of customers that if we didn't have Cisco AMP, we probably would have had ransomware somewhere. So, it's protecting us very well from a lot of hackers, malware, and especially ransomware."
"It used to take us a month to find out that something is infected, we now know that same day, as soon it is infected."
"The integration with other Cisco products seemed to be really effective. We had Umbrella in place and we were using AnyConnect as well as Firepower. Once a threat was detected, being able to do the threat lookups and the live tracking was really useful."
"The solution's integration capabilities are excellent. It's one of the best features."
"Definitely, the best feature for Cisco Secure Endpoint is the integration with Talos. On the backend, Talos checks all the signatures, all the malware, and for any attacks going on around the world... Because Secure Endpoint has a connection to it, we get protected by it right then and there."
"Solution for endpoint detection and response, with good stability and scalability. Users also benefit from email protection and data loss prevention."
"The client isolation feature is a very effective feature."
"Sophos Intercept X is a complete endpoint solution."
"One of the best features of Sophos Intercept is that it repairs without slowing down the system."
"The most valuable feature of Intercept X its ability to stay ahead of the infection. By the time the ransomware spreads to the next machine in line, the data has already been encrypted on that workstation. It didn't matter what the ransomware did because could go in and get it back."
"I like the way it goes beyond the office space. Being a cloud-based solution makes it very easy to manage your endpoints within the office. In this time of COVID, you can also very effectively manage people who are working from home."
"This solution is easy to configure."
"It's a good antivirus software and has a lot of features. It now integrates with their on-premises firewall, which is perfect."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The support needs improvement."
"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."
"Detections could be improved."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"The solution is not stable."
"We don't have issues. We think that Cisco covers all of the security aspects on the market. They continue to innovate in the right way."
"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."
"It could be improved in connection with artificial intelligence and IoT."
"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 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."
"I would like more seamless integration."
"In the next release, I would for it to have back up abilities. I would like the ability to go back to a point in time to when my PC was uninfected and to the moment of when the infection happened."
"Its price is okay for us, but it can always be better. There's always room for improvement when it comes to pricing."
"The tool should be made compatible with Linux and Microsoft operating systems."
"When we load Intercept X, it puts a load on the device. When it is scanning, it slows down the device. A system with basic specifications completely slows down till the scan is complete. They should improve this part."
"We are not able to merge the sub-estates. If we create multiple sub-states and there may be instances where a user is in a different sub-state, it may not be possible for us to relocate that user from one sub-state to another through the console. We have to merge them manually which is not ideal."
"This product does not handle USB drives well."
"The product defends very well on its own but could possibly use enhancement in giving users more controls."
"Mobile device management is a challenging area, and it can be improved. Some areas in the DLP solution can also be improved. It has the DLP capability, but it is not an all-out DLP program. I would like to see them improve the DLP solution in terms of reporting and possibly network monitoring. Currently, they only do the reporting parts of it."
"I would like to see better support for virtual and desktop infrastructures."
"There is room for improvement in terms of stability and updates."
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 44 reviews while Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 101 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Makes it possible to see a threat once and block it across all endpoints and your entire security platform". 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 Trend Micro Apex One. 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.