Compare Cisco AMP for Endpoints vs. Palo Alto Networks Traps

Cisco AMP for Endpoints is ranked 14th in Endpoint Protection for Business with 7 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Traps is ranked 5th in Endpoint Protection for Business with 11 reviews. Cisco AMP for Endpoints is rated 8.8, while Palo Alto Networks Traps is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco AMP for Endpoints writes "Offers a good scope and a good ability to shut attacks down then go back and see what happened". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Traps writes "Its multi-layer approach helps my organization with anti-malware, exploit protection, and restrictions". Cisco AMP for Endpoints is most compared with McAfee Complete Data Protection, CrowdStrike and Microsoft Windows Defender, whereas Palo Alto Networks Traps is most compared with Microsoft Windows Defender, Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) and CrowdStrike. See our Cisco AMP for Endpoints vs. Palo Alto Networks Traps report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco AMP for Endpoints vs. Palo Alto Networks Traps and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
378,327 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
The stability of the solution is perfect. I believe it's the most stable solution on the market right now.The simplicity of use is its most valuable feature. You can very clearly see things.The most valuable features of this solution are the IPS and the integration with ISE.For the initial first level of support, we provide it from our side. If there's escalation required, we use Cisco tech for the AMP. And again, they are perfect. I mean, one of the best, compared to any other vendors.I am told that we get over 100 million emails a month. This filters them down and allows only somewhere about three million emails, which is a great help.Its most valuable features are its scalability and advanced threat protection for customers.Real-time threat prevention using sandboxing, file trajectory, and retrospective security.

Read more »

The one feature of Palo Alto Networks Traps that our organization finds most valuable is the App ID service.The stability of the solution is very good. We have about 100 users on it right now, and we use it twice a week.It's very stable. I've never experienced downtime for the ASM console or ASM core.We have a complete overview of all our PCs and it's very easy to handle and to use the interface. It has a lot of benefits for us.It blocks malicious files. It prevents attacks. It doesn't require many updates, it's a very light application.The most valuable features are the fact that it was running in the background and it would intercept any weird stuff, and the fact that it would send things directly to the cloud for sandboxing. It's quite practical.After deploying Traps, we saw the performance of the network improve by 65 to 70 percent.Traps is quite a stable product. Once it was properly deployed and configured, you have nothing to be worried about.

Read more »

Cons
The reporting and analytics areas of the solution need to be improved.The initial setup is a bit complex because you need to execute existing antiviruses or security software that you have on your device.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.In the next version of this solution, I would like to see the addition of local authentication.The solution needs more in-depth analytics.I would like them to add whatever makes filtering more advanced in scanning and blocking for malware in emails.We would like to have an API integration with a SIEM solution, because as far as I know, it currently hasn't yet been released.It does not include encryption and decryption of local file shares.

Read more »

It automatically detects security issues. It should be able to protect our network devices while operating autonomously.The solution needs better reports. I think they should let the customer go in and customize the reports.In the next release, I would like to see more UI improvements. Their UI is a bit basic. When we are speaking about Palo Alto Networks they are the big company, so they can improve the UI a little bit. The UI, the reports, the log system can all be improved.Currently, if you use Palo Alto endpoint protection as the only solution it's very complicated to remove pre-existing threats.Managing the product should be easier.There are some false positives. What our guys would have liked is that it would have been easier to manipulate as soon as they found a false positive that they knew was a false positive. How to do so was not obvious. Some people complained about it. The interface, the ESM, is not user-friendly.There are some default policies which sometimes affect our applications and cause them to run around. In the hotel industry, we use a different type of data versus Oracle and SQL. By default, there are some policies which stop us from running properly. Because of this, the support level is also not that strong. We have to wait to get a results.Traps doesn't work with McAfee. You need to remove McAfee to install Traps. This is very common, and its nothing that should be an issue. Some antivirus engines recognize Traps as an threat component, so maybe they need to shake hands somewhere.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
The costs of 50 licenses of AMP for three years is around $9,360.​Pricing can be more expensive than similar software that does less functionality, but not recognized by customers.​

Read more »

The price was fine.When we first bought it, it was a bit expensive, but it was worth it. The licensing was straightforward.I did PoCs on products called Cylance and CrowdStrike. Although, I consider these products and they were also good, when it come to cost and budgetary factors, Traps has been proven to be better than the other two products. It is quite cost-effective and delivers all the entire solution which we require.It is cost-effective compared to similar solutions. It fits for the small businesses through to the big businesses.The return on investment is from the user side because we have seen the performance of it increase the delivery time of the product if we are using too many web-based and on-premise applications. In indirect ways, we saw the return of investment in terms of performance and user satisfaction increase.It is "expensive" and flexible.Traps pays for itself within the first 16 months of a three-year subscription. This is attributed to OPEX savings, as security teams spent less time trying to identify and isolate malware for analysis as a result of a reduction in malware incidents, false positives, and breach avoidance.We didn't have to pay any additional fee for the cloud instance. It just came with the renewal, which was nice.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection for Business solutions are best for your needs.
378,327 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
9,365
Comparisons
6,089
Reviews
7
Average Words per Review
377
Avg. Rating
8.9
Views
18,374
Comparisons
13,039
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
799
Avg. Rating
8.5
Top Comparisons
Also Known As
Cyvera
Learn
Cisco
Palo Alto Networks
Overview

Advanced Malware Protection (AMP) is subscription-based, managed through a web-based management console, and deployed on a variety of platforms that protects endpoints, network, email and web Traffic. AMP key features include the following: Global threat intelligence to proactively defend against known and emerging threats, Advanced sandboxing that performs automated static and dynamic analysis of files against more than 700 behavioral indicators, Point-in-time malware detection and blocking in real time and Continuous analysis and retrospective security regardless of the file's disposition and Continuous analysis and retrospective security.

Traps replaces legacy antivirus and secures endpoints with a multi-method prevention approach that blocks malware and exploits, both known and unknown, before they compromise endpoints such as laptops, desktops and servers.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco AMP for Endpoints
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks Traps
Sample Customers
Heritage Bank, Mobile County Schools, NHL University, Thunder Bay Regional, Yokogawa Electric, Sam Houston State University, First Financial BankCBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company29%
Government29%
Comms Service Provider14%
University14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company25%
Comms Service Provider13%
Government13%
Construction Company7%
REVIEWERS
Mining And Metals Company22%
Healthcare Company22%
Government11%
Financial Services Firm11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company29%
Comms Service Provider13%
Media Company7%
Construction Company7%
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco AMP for Endpoints vs. Palo Alto Networks Traps and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
378,327 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection for Business 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.
Sign Up with Email