We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Fortinet FortiClient based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"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 setup is pretty simple."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"I am really satisfied with the technical support."
"The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that there is a lot more malware slipping through my email filters than I expected."
"It is a very stable program."
"It provides real-time visibility and control over endpoints, allowing its users to promptly respond to any security incidents and remediate any vulnerabilities."
"The entirety of our network infrastructure is Cisco and the most valuable feature is the integration."
"It's quite simple, and the advantage I see is that I get the trajectory of what happened inside the network, how a file has been transmitted to the workstation, and which files have got corrupted."
"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 best feature that we found most valuable, is actually the security product for the endpoint, formerly known as AMP. It has behavioral analytics, so you can be more proactive toward zero-day threats. I found that quite good."
"The solution has inexpensive scalability, works very well and can communicate with other Fortinet devices."
"The solution is easy to configure and manage."
"The connection speed is fast. I can connect quickly at any time, and there are never any interruptions to the FortiClient connection. I could easily code into the client's server with that connection, with no lag."
"From Forticlient, the EMS, the central management is easy to use."
"The configuration is the most valuable feature."
"What I like most about FortiClient is that it's easy to use. The way it displays information is very straightforward."
"The solution is stable, we have not had any issues in the time we have been using it."
"The most valuable feature is the single pane of glass, single point of management."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The support needs improvement."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"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."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"The product does not provide options like tunnel creation or virtual appliances."
"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."
"It is not very stable because we have new versions four times a year, which fixes bugs. We had some problems with some deployments."
"The user interface is dull."
"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."
"Logging could be better in terms of sending more logs to Cisco Firepower or Cisco ASA. That's an area where it could be made better."
"The integration of the Cisco products for security could be better in the sense that not everything is integrated, and they aren't working together. In addition, not all products are multi-tenant, so you can't separate different customer environments from each other, which makes it a little bit hard for a managed service provider to deliver services to the customers."
"This product has issues with the number of false positives that it reports."
"Its stability can be improved. It is not as reliable as I would like it to be. There are times when things don't work quite right. Our biggest pain point is not related to Fortinet FortiClient and the whole scheme of things. It is related to one of the additional services called FortiGuard. They are the arm that does all of the updates to definitions, keeps all the signatures updated, and responds to new threats and whatnot. What we have found is that they react quickly, but sometimes their solutions aren't compatible with all of the components of the Fortinet security suite, specifically around FortiSandbox."
"The solution's access control could be improved."
"It would be extremely useful to have an automatic updating feature."
"While we like patch management, it would be nice if it could handle patch management for other solutions, like Microsoft."
"The pricing of the solution should be less expensive."
"There is room for improvement by increasing the solution's knowledge base."
"The tool needs to improve its web filtering feature. Its support quality needs improvement. We speak different languages, and this can create misunderstandings."
"The solution can improve by adding new remote console or endpoint features to make the solution easier to use."
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 44 reviews while Fortinet FortiClient is ranked 15th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 85 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Fortinet FortiClient is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Single dashboard management, quick infrastructure threat detection, and high level support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiClient writes "Easy to set up and user-friendly with good support ". Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint and Trend Micro Apex One, whereas Fortinet FortiClient is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business and Ivanti Connect Secure. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Fortinet FortiClient report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.
