We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Intercept X Endpoint based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Cisco Secure Endpoint stands out for its threat-hunting capabilities, sandboxing, and swift response to attacks. Users also praised the solution's seamless integration with Talos for continuous protection. Intercept X Endpoint combines two products into one solution, offering strong performance, server protection, and efficient threat management capabilities. Cisco Secure Endpoint could benefit from providing more scenario-based information and a simpler, more customizable main dashboard. Integration with artificial intelligence and IoT is another area for improvement. Intercept X Endpoint could integrate more seamlessly with third-party vendors and improve support for virtual infrastructures.
Service and Support: Users said Cisco support is efficient and responsive, and customers also found it easy to find answers in the documentation without help. Some users recommend enhancing training programs and streamlining management consoles to further enhance the level of support provided. Some users found Intercept X Endpoint's support team knowledgeable and supportive, while others expressed dissatisfaction with responsiveness.
Ease of Deployment: Users generally found Cisco Secure Endpoint easy to set up, but some users reported challenges related to agent behavior and configuration. The initial installation involves downloading an agent and installing it on endpoints, and total deployment time ranged from a week to several months. Intercept X Endpoint has a straightforward initial setup, with quick installation and simple configuration and maintenance. Some users said they occasionally encountered issues that required reinstallation.
Pricing: Cisco Secure Endpoint's pricing is seen as fair and reasonable. Some users requested additional discounts, particularly for educational purposes. Intercept X Endpoint is generally seen as fairly priced, but some users think it’s on the higher end of the price scale.
ROI: Cisco Secure Endpoint offers cost savings and the potential to earn money by extending services. Users say that Intercept X Endpoint offers exceptional defense against ransomware and zero-day threats, leading to a positive return on investment.
Comparison Results: Our users favor Cisco Secure Endpoint over Intercept X Endpoint. Cisco Secure Endpoint offers more comprehensive protection, better customer service, and support, making it the preferred choice. Cisco Secure Endpoint has some advanced features for finding and resolving threats that Intercept X lacks. Users also appreciate Cisco Secure Endpoint's pricing, whereas some users say Intercept X Endpoint has room to improve on price.
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The entirety of our network infrastructure is Cisco and the most valuable feature is the integration."
"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 integration with other Cisco products seemed to be really effective. We had Umbrella in place and we were using AnyConnect as well as Firepower. Once a threat was detected, being able to do the threat lookups and the live tracking was really useful."
"The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that there is a lot more malware slipping through my email filters than I expected."
"Any alert that we get is an actionable alert. Immediately, there is information that we can just click through, see the point in time, what happened, what caused it, and what automatic actions were taken. We can then choose to take any manual actions, if we want, or start our investigation. We're no longer looking at digging into information or wading through hundreds of incidents. There's a list which says where the status is assigned, e.g., under investigation or investigation finished. That is all in the console. It has taken away a lot of the administration, which we would normally be doing, and integrated it into the console for us."
"It doesn't impact the devices. It is an agent-based solution, and we see no performance knock on cell phones. That was a big thing for us, especially in the mobile world. We don't see battery degradation like you do with other solutions which really drain the battery, as they're constantly doing things. That can shorten the useful life of a device."
"The solution makes it possible to see a threat once and block it everywhere across all endpoints and the entire security platform. It has the ability to block right down to the file and application level across all devices based on policies, such as, blacklisting and whitelisting of software and applications. This is good. Its strength is the ability to identify threats very quickly, then lock them and the network down and block the threats across the organization and all devices, which is what you want. You don't want to be spending time working out how to block something. You want to block something very quickly, letting that flow through to all the devices and avoiding the same scenario on different operating systems."
"The simplicity of use is its most valuable feature. You can very clearly see things."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the CryptoGuard in Sophos. In a case of a ransomware attack, this feature comes into action to protect us."
"The initial setup is simple."
"Sophos Intercept X is a complete endpoint solution."
"The most valuable features are the anti-ransomware engine, deep learning, web filtering, and the cloud manageability."
"One of the best features of Sophos Intercept is that it repairs without slowing down the system."
"It is quite scalable. You can always add more users. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten."
"The most valuable features of Sophos Intercept X are the ease of use and the policy options that are simple to understand. Overall, the protection is good."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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."
"I would like more seamless integration."
"...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."
"The user interface is dull."
"It could be improved in connection with artificial intelligence and IoT."
"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."
"This product has issues with the number of false positives that it reports."
"The connector updates are very easily done now, and that's improving. Previously, the connector had an issue, where almost every time it needed to be updated, it required a machine reboot. This was always a bit of an inconvenience and a bug. Because with a lot of software now, you don't need to do that and shouldn't need to be rebooting all the time."
"In the next version of this solution, I would like to see the addition of local authentication."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"It should offer better security updates."
"In my opinion, there have been significant developments in the product. In my opinion, I don’t have any suggestions as of now, however I can suggest a cost deduction which will be beneficial for all the parties. It will also relieve our budget and benefit our team."
"We've had difficulty with uninstalling the solution. When we try to uninstall an old version of the basic Sophos Antivirus, it doesn't seem to uninstall completely."
"If we can lower the price, it will be fantastic because it will generate more revenue for us."
"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."
"When there is an event generated by either the firewall or Intercept X, and the originating IP address is the same, these should be merged into a single event rather than two."
"Stability-wise, we had issues with some clients which had to be dealt with manually. The issue was with that installation part."
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 10th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 22 reviews while Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 23 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Tighter integration with Umbrella and Firepower gave us eye-opening information". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "It can get ahead of the ransomware attack and encrypt the data on clients in the path of the infection". Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, VMware Carbon Black Endpoint and ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, 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 Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Intercept X Endpoint report.
See our list of best EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) vendors and best EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) vendors.
We monitor all EPP (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.