We performed a comparison between ESET Endpoint Security and Sophos Intercept X based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Of the two products, ESET Endpoint Security has more favorable reviews. The solution has very effective threat protection, is reasonably priced, and has great service and support.
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"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."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"I like the integration; it lets you see the product installed on a particular computer."
"The tool protects everything."
"The ability to push policies and also to restrict an installation or to restrict any form of threat within the policy has been quite useful."
"The product does not slow down the machine."
"The dashboard is useful for management, and its cost for the features is hard to beat."
"The most valuable feature in ESET Endpoint Security is the game mode to restrict notifications."
"It can scale as well."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the management."
"It's a good antivirus software and has a lot of features. It now integrates with their on-premises firewall, which is perfect."
"The dashboard is user-friendly."
"The key factor that attracted me to Sophos Intercept X was the multi-platform. I have multiple clients that have mixed environments of Mac and Windows. I am able to deliver a standard solution, regardless of the platform."
"It is stable and has a good price. I find it very good."
"The initial setup is simple."
"There are products that are technically stronger. However, this product has everything in one solution, which makes it a strong endpoint option."
"The stability on offer is fine."
"This is really good because it's applicable to zero-day threats."
"The support needs improvement."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"Detections could be improved."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"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 should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"Sometimes, ESET sends alerts within my own network that cause confusion. That is, it might warn about contamination, or that the VM has crashed, but it doesn't go further than that. It just shows me the alert and sometimes I am not sure what to do about it."
"There are some complexities if you want to manipulate the software."
"Dual management for the customer, who needs to access the local on-premise console from a remote cloud-based console."
"The solution should offer more security surrounding blacklisted websites."
"There are other features you can add on to help make the security stronger, however, they should offer better security even on a basic level."
"We have experienced some problems with the actualization of some endpoints. We then have to manually reinstall the version on these endpoints."
"ESET's updates are mostly manual. That's my biggest concern. I'd like it to be more automatic. I've had to download the new version and run it manually to install it. I've got several workstations like that right now."
"While the pricing is good, they could always lower it a bit."
"The pricing could be a bit lower to match the normal retail pricing."
"If we can lower the price, it will be fantastic because it will generate more revenue for us."
"I recommend that Intercept X Endpoint should include a patch assessment feature. Various vendors offer virtual patching solutions, which could be a game-changer, especially for the financial sector where frequent service restarts are challenging. These solutions allow patching servers without the need for restarts. Incorporating these features into Intercept X Endpoint would enhance its effectiveness in securing endpoints and servers."
"The tool is not stable on Linux systems."
"The solution can be expensive, although we do see the value in it."
"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."
"The detection and the AI capabilities should be improved upon."
"We had some initial problems with our deployment, and they were more around uninstalling Sophos Basic and installing Sophos Intercept X. We had some challenges with some of the uninstallation scripts. They can improve the deployment of Sophos Intercept X when there is already an existing Sophos version. They can also provide more information in the form of best practices and lessons learned from previous findings. A knowledge base with this type of information would be helpful."
More ESET Endpoint Protection Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
ESET Endpoint Protection Platform is ranked 11th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews while Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 101 reviews. ESET Endpoint Protection Platform is rated 8.2, while Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of ESET Endpoint Protection Platform writes "Easy to set up with good security and rapidly improving capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". ESET Endpoint Protection Platform is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Panda Adaptive Defense 360, whereas Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Seqrite Endpoint Security. See our ESET Endpoint Protection Platform vs. Intercept X Endpoint 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.