We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Trellix Endpoint Security 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."This is stable and scalable."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"It is stable and scalable."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The stability is very good."
"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."
"Real-time threat prevention using sandboxing, file trajectory, and retrospective security."
"Among the most valuable features are the exclusions. And on the scalability side, we can integrate well with the SIEM orchestration engine and a number of applications that are proprietary or open source."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the IPS and the integration with ISE."
"The solution's integration capabilities are excellent. It's one of the best features."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its technical support."
"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."
"When Intel acquired McAfee they worked on the protocol so that all vendors can work on the same platform. It's a very big improvement in McAfee. All McAfee products talk to each other. Other vendor's products can join this platform as well so it makes it more powerful on the enterprise side for McAfee."
"Their malware detection rate is excellent for all type of devices and the anti-theft products are good and easy to use."
"The primary reason the solution is good is because of its ease-of-use."
"Dynamic Application Containment."
"We receive good protection with this solution."
"The solution is reliable."
"It has improved my organization because it helps with visibility, in terms of security. We can see the actual attack and can contain it. The antivirus can detect that."
"It's easy to use."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"The thing I hate the most, which they have not fixed, is when it creates duplicate entries within a console. If you have a computer and you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, or you upgrade your agent from version 6 to 7, it creates a new instance in there instead of updating the information. Instead of paying a license for one computer, I have to license two computers until I manually go in, search for all the duplicate entries, and clean them out myself."
"...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."
"I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."
"In Orbital, there are tons of prebuilt queries, but there is not a lot of information in lay terms. There isn't enough information to help us with what we're looking for and why we are looking for it with this query. There are probably a dozen queries in there that really focus on what I need to focus on, but they are not always easy to find the first time through."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"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."
"In the next release, I would for it to have back up abilities. I would like the ability to go back to a point in time to when my PC was uninfected and to the moment of when the infection happened."
"Its price is okay for us, but it can always be better. There's always room for improvement when it comes to pricing."
"The solution needs to offer better local technical support."
"Its pricing needs to be improved."
"Tech support is not as helpful as they were in the past."
"The security of this solution needs improvement."
"They can improve its resource consumption, such as memory, and maybe provide better or smaller updates. It always takes a lot of resources, but it has been getting better. I have been using McAfee products for the last 20 years or so, and I know it is getting better."
"Signatures to protect against new attacks."
"The resolution time should be faster."
"Trying to move away from the signature model for antivirus and malware blocking is something that would be nice. Instead of having to update every day, which is signature-based, moving to more of a kernel or architecture-based model would probably be beneficial."
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 43 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 94 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. 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 writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". 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 Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), CrowdStrike Falcon and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Trellix Endpoint Security 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.