We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Stormshield 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."It is stable and scalable."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The stability is very good."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"This is stable and scalable."
"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."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The most valuable feature is its threat protection and data privacy, including its cyber attack and data protection, as we need to cover and protect data on user devices."
"The entirety of our network infrastructure is Cisco and the most valuable feature is the integration."
"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."
"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."
"Cisco has definitely improved our organization a lot. In terms of business, our company feels safer. We actually switched from legacy signature-based solutions to threat intelligence-based and machine learning-based solutions, which is Cisco Secure. This has improved our security significantly, from 10% of signature-based technology security to 99.9% of the current one which we are running. We were happy."
"Integration is a key selling factor for Cisco security products. We have a Cisco Enterprise Agreement with access to Cisco Email Security, Cisco Firepower, Cisco Stealthwatch, Cisco Talos, Cisco Threat Grid, Cisco Umbrella, and also third-party solutions. This is key to our security and maximizing operations. Because we do have the Email Security appliance and it is integrated with Threat Response, we have everything tied together. Additionally, we are using the Cisco SecureX platform, as we were a beta test for that new solution. With SecureX, we are able to pull all those applications into one pane for visibility and maintenance. This greatly maximizes our security operations."
"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."
"The ability to detonate a particular problem in a sandbox environment and understand what the effects are, is helpful. We're trying, for example, to determine, when people send information in, if an attachment is legitimate or not. You just have to open it. If you can do that in a secure sandbox environment, that's an invaluable feature. What you would do otherwise would be very risky and tedious."
"The feature I find most valuable is that it protects the global station."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"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."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"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 support needs improvement."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The room for improvement would be on event notifications. I have mine tuned fairly well. I do feel that if you subscribe to all the event notification types out-of-the-box, or don't really go through and take the time to filter out events, the notifications can become overwhelming with information. Sometimes, when you're overwhelmed with information, you just say, "I'm not going to look at anything because I'm receiving so much." I recommend the vendor come up with a white paper on the best practices for event notifications."
"The initial setup is a bit complex because you need to execute existing antiviruses or security software that you have on your device."
"The GUI needs improvement, it's not good."
"In the next version of this solution, I would like to see the addition of local authentication."
"It is not very stable because we have new versions four times a year, which fixes bugs. We had some problems with some deployments."
"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."
"Due to the complexity of the technology that is used and its advanced threat detection capabilities, it is possible to encounter many delays in operation."
"The technical support is very slow."
"The solution's integration with the Windows environment could be better."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 44 reviews while Stormshield Endpoint Security is ranked 64th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP). Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Stormshield 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 Stormshield Endpoint Security writes "Protects the global station and has good stability ". 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 Stormshield Endpoint Security is most compared with Fortinet FortiClient and Bitdefender GravityZone EDR. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Stormshield 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.