We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense and Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Email Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup is straightforward. You just add the license, click it, and then you can set up the rules. It is quite simple."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is a stable solution."
"I like its investigation capabilities, as that is what is most important to me. It is fairly simple with a user-friendly interface."
"Does a thorough job of examining email and URLs for malicious content."
"Microsoft Defender has a feature to protect each and every attachment. Even if it's an encrypted attachment, it will check for any potential threats."
"The initial setup was easy."
"The most valuable feature is the integration. It's a single console, so we don't have to switch around between multiple products. Another valuable feature is the ease of operations and maintenance."
"The two main features that prove most beneficial for us are URL scanning and attachment scanning."
"On ease of use, it rates very high. It's something that I was able to get into without really looking at any documentation. I wanted to see what it felt like before I started looking at any documentation on how to use it, and it was very easy to use. It works very smoothly. The user experience is very intuitive. They did an amazing job on that."
"The features and functionalities are much better than Microsoft's in-built Defender plan."
"Cisco has a threat mechanism called cloud-based Talos, where all the threats are inbuilt."
"It's very easy to deploy and configure."
"The ability to see east-west traffic is its most valuable feature. Traditionally, email defense focuses on north-south, inbound-outbound, egress-ingress traffic. With Cisco Secure Email Cloud Mailbox, it's able to quickly identify, track, tag, and categorize emails that are internal. That can typically give us visibility into if there's an internal compromised account (for example). Someone can then use that internal compromised account to email additional accounts with either malicious software or links, but internal within that Office tenant. Effectively, that email message never leaves the tenant. Any of the mail gateways really do not have any method or way of seeing this traffic since it's not leaving the environment."
"I would say it's very comprehensive, with multiple antivirus OEMs, virus encrypt features, encryption, and more."
"Secure Email Threat Defense's scalability is good."
"It has an efficient email filtering feature."
"It is scalable."
"The product protects against malware."
"We can migrate seamlessly without any disruptions to our operations."
"It's definitely scalable."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Exchange Online Protection is the accidental release of information protection capabilities. Additionally, the solution is easy to use."
"It's all running in the backend, so it doesn't affect the app functionality."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of administration. Other solutions require complex administration, but Microsoft Exchange Online Protection is easier."
"It is easy to configure, easy to use, easy to add exclusions, easy to track, and easy to add anything else if you want."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 should be more proactive."
"The visibility for the weaknesses in the system and unauthorized access can be improved."
"In one of the reports I can get the exact place where a vulnerable file resides. But for that, I need to explicitly go into the device and check. If they could include that file part in the report, without my having to go to the device itself, that would help."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 must improve the overall management style, including the GUI. It also needs to change the filters so that it is easy to whitelist and blacklist data."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 should improve the troubleshooting tools. It's unclear whether the device is blocked at the firewall level or at the device itself. The granularity needed for troubleshooting is currently lacking. From my perspective, Microsoft should address this issue to benefit many users who likely share the same sentiment."
"We are always looking for others tools to increase automation on tasks. There can be better integration with other solutions, such as PowerPoint and email."
"Microsoft wants its well-paying customers to finish testing some of its half-baked products, find bugs, and report bugs back to Microsoft's team, which is a little frustrating for those who have to manage it and roll it up to thousands of people across the organization."
"They have moved features from one console to another. Things have been moved around in the interface and it takes me time to find where certain features are."
"The pricing could always be better."
"From a technical point of view, Cisco is far behind in terms of cybersecurity, and it has to improve very much."
"There is still room for improvement in terms of integrations with other Cisco tools and non-Cisco tools. There is also some room for improvement needed in terms of the reporting."
"We encounter issues while searching for missing emails."
"The search area has room for improvement. When you go to the next page, it remains at the bottom of the current page that you're on. Also, under the reports section, it allows you to see any "convictions," but if you want to search for those convictions you have to remember when they all came in and go back and edit the search accordingly. You cannot click on the list of convictions to actually see if you had a spike at a certain time."
"The solution is a bit expensive."
"The tool gives false positives and it needs to be more accurate. I would like to see AI as a new feature."
"This solution could be improved by integration with Sandbox."
"The tool's classification for bulk email is cumbersome."
"When the product is being updated, it changes some of the setups. The support team is also not good."
"The tool is not 100% stable."
"Our company faces difficulty with Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) because it's too big, clunky, and difficult for a small client to implement quickly and easily."
"The price of Microsoft Exchange Online Protection could be reduced to make it more competitive."
"The product could be more stable. Microsoft products could be more stable because sometimes, even though they are updating some things, we cannot find those updates."
"If a company wants to put in line back-to-back anti-spam solutions, they need to work on that part because Microsoft recommends either you use EOP as a front line or you don't use it."
"The solution must improve the user experience."
More Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense is ranked 17th in Email Security with 11 reviews while Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) is ranked 3rd in Email Security with 34 reviews. Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense writes "Easy to deploy and configure with excellent support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) writes "An effective email security solution that provides DLP, Safe Attachment, and Safe Links". Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense is most compared with Cisco Secure Email, Abnormal Security, Kiteworks and Armorblox, whereas Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) is most compared with Proofpoint Email Protection, Cisco Secure Email, Fortinet FortiMail, Mimecast Email Security and Barracuda Email Security Gateway. See our Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense vs. Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) report.
See our list of best Email Security vendors.
We monitor all Email Security 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.