We performed a comparison between Check Point Pointsec [EOL] and Cisco Secure Endpoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, McAfee, Sophos and others in Endpoint Encryption."Check Point GAiA is easy to use."
"Full disk encryption helps us ensure that data stored on a device is encrypted."
"One of the characteristics that give us the most value is that it offers the ability to perform HTTPS inspections."
"At the time when this tool was launched on the market, it had new technologies integrated within."
"Real-time threat prevention using sandboxing, file trajectory, and retrospective security."
"I am really satisfied with the technical support."
"The threat Grid with the ability to observe the sandboxing, analyze, and perform investigations of different malicious files has been great."
"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."
"Device Trajectory is one of the most valuable features. We're able to dig in and really understand how things came to be and where to focus our efforts."
"The VPN is most valuable. It's the best thing in the market today. We can use two-factor authentication with another platform, and we can authenticate with two-factor."
"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 most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection."
"The UI was one of the most difficult points to get used to. Due to the UI, even though it was used every day, the administration was complicated."
"We would maybe want (in the future) advanced security in the filtering of access to the metaverse by augmented reality cameras."
"The installation was quite complex."
"In the next release of this solution, I would like to see application identity support."
"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."
"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 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."
"Maybe there is room for improvement in some of the automated remediation. We have other tools in place that AMP feeds into that allow for that to happen, so I look at it as one seamless solution. But if you're buying AMP all by itself, I don't know if it can remove malicious software after the fact or if it requires the other tools that we use to do some of that."
"The pricing policy could be more competitive, similar to Cisco's offerings."
"This product has issues with the number of false positives that it reports."
"In terms of the user experience, if the UX design could be much simpler [that would improve things]... if they could make it more intuitive for someone who is not an engineer so that they still can read what's going on in their webpage and understand, that would be something."
"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."
Earn 20 points
Check Point Pointsec [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Endpoint Encryption with 4 reviews while Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 43 reviews. Check Point Pointsec [EOL] is rated 8.0, while Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Check Point Pointsec [EOL] writes "Very good disk encryption, secure authentication, and centralized administration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Single dashboard management, quick infrastructure threat detection, and high level support". Check Point Pointsec [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint and VMware Carbon Black Endpoint.
We monitor all Endpoint Encryption 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.
