We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) 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."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."
"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 most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"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."
"Real-time threat prevention using sandboxing, file trajectory, and retrospective security."
"Secure Endpoint has decreased our time to remediate by providing the tools and the integrations we need so we can quickly look across our entire network, look for those threats, and actually make good decisions."
"One of the best features of AMP is its cloud feature. It doesn't matter where the device is in regards to whether it's inside or outside of your network environment, especially right now when everybody's remote and taken their laptops home. You don't have to be VPNed into the environment for AMP to work. AMP will work anywhere in the world, as long as it has an Internet connection. You get protection and reporting with it. No matter where the device is, AMP has still got coverage on it and is protecting it. You still have the ability to manage and remediate things. The cloud feature is the magic bullet. This is what makes the solution a valuable tool as far as I'm concerned."
"I am really satisfied with the technical support."
"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."
"Its most valuable features are its scalability and advanced threat protection for customers."
"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."
"Provides protection against threats."
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"Provides good mobile device protection."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"FireEye Endpoint Security's scalability is awesome. I think it is one of the best on that front."
"The independent modules are very good."
"I have not received any complaints about the performance."
"The extendability is great."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"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 solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"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."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"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."
"It's pretty good as it is, but its cost could be improved."
"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."
"The product does not provide options like tunnel creation or virtual appliances."
"I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."
"The pricing policy could be more competitive, similar to Cisco's offerings."
"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 GUI needs improvement, it's not good."
"I would like them to add whatever makes filtering more advanced in scanning and blocking for malware in emails."
"Search feature could be made more user-friendly."
"The solution can be expensive."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing. The price should be improved, it's high."
"It is a very heavy tool, unfortunately."
"The product’s on-premise version is costly in terms of extra charges for SQL database and Windows server licenses."
"The email protection isn't efficient enough, and I'd like to see DLP features in the next release."
"A policy-editing console should be added."
"Malware detection can be better. It doesn't have support and detection for the recent malware, but it has a compensatory control where it can do the behavior-based assessment and alert you when there is something malicious or unexpected. For example, when a certain user is executing the privilege command, which is not normal. These dynamic detections are good, and they compensate for malware detection."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 43 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 48 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. 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 Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "It integrates well with other solutions, but the vendor needs more of a local presence and faster response". Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint and Cisco Umbrella, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Open EDR. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.
