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."Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"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"
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"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."
"The stability of the solution is perfect. I believe it's the most stable solution on the market right now."
"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."
"If somebody has been compromised, the question always is: How has it affected other devices in the network? Cisco AMP gives you a very neat view of that."
"There are several valuable features including strong prevention and exceptional reporting capabilities."
"The threat Grid with the ability to observe the sandboxing, analyze, and perform investigations of different malicious files has been great."
"The product itself is pretty reliable. The security features that it has make it reliable."
"I am really satisfied with the technical support."
"The initial setup is easy. Our clients use the FortiClient EMS, which is the central console for installing FortiClient. It is easy and very user friendly."
"What I find valuable in FortiClient is its patch management capabilities, allowing remote updates efficiently."
"The stability is pretty good."
"The integration capabilities are good."
"The integration of VPN services with endpoint security is valuable."
"It’s really easy to use."
"There is a lot of documentation available online."
"We mainly use this solution because we have many Fortinet solutions like antivirus and SSL assessment."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Detections could be improved."
"The support needs improvement."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"They could improve the main dashboard to more clearly show me the things that I want to see. When I open the dashboard right now, I see a million things and they are not always the things that I need."
"...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."
"It could be improved in connection with artificial intelligence and IoT."
"On the firewall level, they were lagging a little bit behind, but they are running up again. I have full trust in the new 3000 series of firewalls where we would also be able to look more into the traffic that we're monitoring and get more security layers in our services. That would definitely be a big step."
"The initial setup of Cisco Secure Endpoint is complex."
"The Linux agent is a simple offline classic agent, and it doesn't support Secure Boot, which is important to have on a Linux machine. The Linux agent has conflicts with other solutions, including the Exploit Prevention system found in Windows servers. We didn't find a fix during troubleshooting, and Cisco couldn't offer one either. Eventually, we had to shut down the Exploit Prevention system. We didn't like that as we always want a solution that can fit smoothly into the setup without causing problems, especially where security is concerned. The tool also caused CPU spikes on our production machine, and we were seriously considering moving to another product."
"The GUI needs improvement, it's not good."
"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 solution requires skillful users."
"The tool is expensive."
"The only thing that is lacking in this product is the support. Their support can be improved."
"With the lower-end licenses, it tends to kick you out after eight hours. There is a function where it automatically kicks you out after eight hours. They could improve that and not kick you out after eight hours. Other than that, it is already pretty good."
"FortiClient's encryption key could be stronger so that it's not broken too easily."
"The pricing of the solution should be less expensive."
"There isn't much to improve in terms of features and comparison with other vendors. It just needs to stay more up to date in catching the malware. The user interface may be improved, which would be a minor enhancement. Unlike central management, in endpoint security, the end users don't need to keep looking at the endpoint user interface. The technology is the most important thing in endpoint security."
"FortiClient is not communicating with the new version of the firewall."
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 45 reviews while Fortinet FortiClient is ranked 15th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 86 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Fortinet FortiClient is rated 8.0. 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 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.