Compare Cisco AMP for Endpoints vs. WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response

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. WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response and other solutions. Updated: May 2021.
511,521 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
"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.""The most valuable features of this solution are the IPS and the integration with ISE.""The simplicity of use is its most valuable feature. You can very clearly see things.""The stability of the solution is perfect. I believe it's the most stable solution on the market right now.""I am really satisfied with the technical support.""It is a very stable program.""The solution's integration capabilities are excellent. It's one of the best features.""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."

More Cisco AMP for Endpoints Pros »

"The solution is very easy to use.""The analytics are important because if there is an abnormality then it provides that information to us.""WatchGuard is very user-friendly. It provides us with all of the security services we need.""The protection that it provides from ransomware is valuable. The awareness that it has is also valuable. It didn't have a central console earlier, but now it has a central console, which is pretty good."

More WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response Pros »

Cons
"The solution needs more in-depth analytics.""In the next version of this solution, I would like to see the addition of local authentication.""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.""The reporting and analytics areas of the solution need to be improved.""I would like more seamless integration.""The technical support is very slow.""I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."

More Cisco AMP for Endpoints Cons »

"The reporting isn't so good. If they worked to improve this aspect of the solution, it would be much stronger.""The ease of detecting where an issue is should be improved.""When it comes to live-monitoring, the user-interface could be improved to make things easier.""It can have a couple of false positives, but after you add them to your allow list, it works fine. It could have better Mac support. I am pretty sure it doesn't have much support for Mac. It can be installed on a Mac, but it is not that good."

More WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"The costs of 50 licenses of AMP for three years is around $9,360.""The price is very good.""The visibility that we have into the endpoint and the forensics that we're able to collect give us value for the price. This is not an overly expensive solution, considering all the things that are provided. You get great performance and value for the cost.""Whenever you are doing the licensing process, I would highly advise to look at what other Cisco solutions you have in your organization, then evaluate if an Enterprise Agreement is the best way to go. In our case, it was the best way to go. Since we had so many other Cisco products, we were able to tie those in. We were actually able to get several Cisco security solutions for less than if we had bought three or four Cisco security solutions independently or ad hoc.""In our case, it is a straightforward annual payment through our Enterprise Agreement.""Our company was very happy with the price of Cisco AMP. It was about a third of what we were paying for System Center Endpoint Protection.""There are a couple of different consumption models: Pay up front, or if you have an enterprise agreement, you can do a monthly thing. Check your licensing possibilities and see what's best for your organization.""The Enterprise Agreement is like an all-you-can-eat buffet of Cisco products. In that vein, it was very affordable."

More Cisco AMP for Endpoints Pricing and Cost Advice »

"The pricing is competitive.""The price of WatchGuard is very good."

More WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions are best for your needs.
511,521 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection.
Top Answer: Licensing fees are on a yearly basis and I am happy with the pricing.
Top Answer: The GUI needs improvement, it's not good. There are false positives in emails. At times, the emails are blocked and detected as malware when they are not. They should work on some of the signatures… more »
Top Answer: The protection that it provides from ransomware is valuable. The awareness that it has is also valuable. It didn't have a central console earlier, but now it has a central console, which is pretty… more »
Top Answer: It can have a couple of false positives, but after you add them to your allow list, it works fine. It could have better Mac support. I am pretty sure it doesn't have much support for Mac. It can be… more »
Top Answer: We have got WatchGuard Firewalls. So, we use their EDR, which is a part of the security package that they provide us. We use this solution for additional protection and response. We use it in… more »
Ranking
Views
20,397
Comparisons
14,050
Reviews
16
Average Words per Review
1,516
Rating
8.8
Views
889
Comparisons
576
Reviews
4
Average Words per Review
369
Rating
8.3
Popular Comparisons
Also Known As
Cisco Secure Endpoint
WatchGuard TDR
Learn More
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.

Hackers are designing malware to be more sophisticated than ever. Through packing, encryption, and polymorphism, cyber criminals are able to disguise their attacks to avoid detection. Zero day threats and advanced malware easily slip by antivirus solutions that are simply too slow to respond to the constant stream of emerging threats. Organizations of all sizes need a solution that leverages a holistic approach to security from the network to the endpoint. WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response (TDR) is a powerful collection of advanced malware defense tools that correlate threat indicators from Firebox appliances and Host Sensors to stop known, unknown and evasive malware threats.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco AMP for Endpoints
Learn more about WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response
Sample Customers
Heritage Bank, Mobile County Schools, NHL University, Thunder Bay Regional, Yokogawa Electric, Sam Houston State University, First Financial Bank
Goodwill New York / New Jersey, F4 IT, Café Comunicação Integrada
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company20%
Government13%
University7%
Comms Service Provider7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider26%
Computer Software Company22%
Government6%
Financial Services Firm5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider32%
Computer Software Company20%
Retailer7%
Government5%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business35%
Midsize Enterprise15%
Large Enterprise50%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business26%
Midsize Enterprise20%
Large Enterprise54%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco AMP for Endpoints vs. WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response and other solutions. Updated: May 2021.
511,521 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Cisco AMP for Endpoints is ranked 3rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is ranked 17th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 4 reviews. Cisco AMP for Endpoints is rated 8.8, while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco AMP for Endpoints writes "We have gained more visibility into what's going on because it detects a lot of threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response writes "Easy initial setup and stable but not as efficient as Palo Alto". Cisco AMP for Endpoints is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender Antivirus, Carbon Black CB Defense, SentinelOne and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, whereas WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is most compared with SentinelOne, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Carbon Black CB Defense and Sophos Intercept X. See our Cisco AMP for Endpoints vs. WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response report.

See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.

We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.